MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117115668 · doi:10.3390/stats9010001

A Proportional Hazards Mixture Cure Model for Subgroup Analysis: Inferential Method and an Application to Colon Cancer Data

2025· article· en· W7117115668 on OpenAlexafffund
Kai Liu, Yingwei Peng, Narayanaswamy Balakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueStats · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLevamisoleCure rateColorectal cancerProportional hazards modelCancerMixture modelMaximum likelihood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When determining subgroups with heterogeneous treatment effects in cancer clinical trials, the threshold of a variable that defines subgroups is often pre-determined by physicians based on their experience, and the optimality of the threshold is not well studied, particularly when the mixture cure rate model is considered. We propose a mixture cure model that allows optimal subgroups to be estimated for both the time to event for uncured subjects and the cure status. We develop a smoothed maximum likelihood method for the estimation of model parameters. An extensive simulation study shows that the proposed smoothed maximum likelihood method provides accurate estimates. Finally, the proposed mixture cure model is applied to a colon cancer study to evaluate the potential differences in the treatment effect of levamisole plus fluorouracil therapy versus levamisole alone therapy between younger and older patients. The model suggests that the difference in the treatment effect on the time to cancer recurrence for uncured patients is significant between patients younger than 67 and patients older than 67, and the younger patient group benefits more from the combined therapy than the older patient group.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.178
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.178
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.486
GPT teacher head0.654
Teacher spread0.167 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207