← Back to all development cases
This case was judged by an anonymized AI reviewer and has not been independently reviewed by people; inspect the draft, cards, and both outputs to assess it.
AutocompleteWith cards better177 / 280 · beu-9cb194f19adc9865

Shared Frailty Methods for Complex Survival Data: A Review of Recent Advances

Statistics · 2205.05322v1

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we compare writing with and without cards?

At the same writing position, the same model produces one first result with cards and one without. All 280 pairs enter the overall anonymized review, which assesses whether a decision not to continue fits the draft.

Overall: 138 with-card wins, 26 ties, 107 no-card wins, 5 pairs where neither was usable, and 4 inconclusive judgments. Both sides wrote text in 218 pairs; 48 had a deliberate stop and 14 included an invalid output.

SAME DRAFT · WITH OR WITHOUT CARDS

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED VERSIONS

SHARED BY BOTH

Draft, writing task, and generation model

A · With cards

Relevant literature cards supplied

B · Without cards

No literature cards supplied

Generation model

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Anonymized AI judge

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Review again with the answer order swapped

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The AI judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received cards.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are positions and cards selected?

We selected 40 writing positions in each of seven fields, for 280 comparisons. The position and relevant literature cards were set before each comparison, so both versions began from the same draft.

The main result retains every frozen position, including places where cards might not add a useful next move. This avoids selecting cases based on their outputs, but 49% describes the whole cohort, not a win rate where evidence clearly had an opportunity to help. This cohort did not record that opportunity label for each position before generation, so those two groups cannot yet be separated reliably.

CARD USE · 140/280

Reported card use in continuations with text

The model reports whether a card affected its continuation. In 140 of 280 tests it produced continuation text and reported card use. The previous count of 150 included 10 cases without continuation text and has been corrected.

COMPARISON · 70 / 7 / 30

Which written version was better?

Of the 107 reported-use cases where both versions produced text, the blinded AI judge preferred the with-card version 70 times, found 7 about the same, and preferred the without-card version 30 times.

How are the two table percentages calculated?

ADOPTION COVERAGE

140reported use with text
÷
280all positions
=
50%

WITH-CARD VERSION PREFERRED

70with cards better
÷
107comparable tests
=
65%

The percentages use different groups: 50% counts continuations with text reporting card use among all 280 tests; 65% covers the 107 such cases with text on both sides. The generating model reports card use, while an anonymized AI judge compares writing quality.

Card use is self-reported by the generator. The anonymized AI judge sees the draft and source snippets, so source-aware preference remains possible; there was no independent human review. The overall result describes these 280 frozen positions, not a win probability for any writing task.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

Shared Frailty Methods for Complex Survival Data: A Review of Recent Advances

1 INTRODUCTION

…lies or medical centers. Dependent survival data also arise when multiple survival times are recorded for each individual. Frailty models is one common approach to handle such data. In frailty models, the dependence is expressed in terms of a random effect, called the frailty. Frailty models have been used with both Cox proportional hazards model and the accelerated failure time model. This paper reviews recent developments in the area of frailty models in a variety of settings. In each setting we provide a detailed model description, assumptions, available estimation methods, and R packages.

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionOverall AI review: With cards better

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Read overall AI review rationale

A = without cards · B = with cards

Both outputs provide reasonable roadmap paragraphs that fit the draft's stated purpose. However, Output B is more usable because it better matches the draft's specific promise. The draft explicitly states: 'In each setting we provide a detailed model description, assumptions, available estimation methods, and R packages.' Output B directly echoes this structure by mentioning 'frailty distribution, the resulting dependence structure, and the estimation procedures available in standard software'—aligning closely with 'model description, assumptions, estimation methods, and R packages.' Output A focuses narrowly on 'shared frailty model and its basic estimation approaches' and 'clustered, multivariate, and spatially correlated survival data,' which partially matches but omits the explicit commitment to assumptions and R packages. Output B's broader mention of 'shared frailty, spatial, multivariate, and cure models' also more naturally covers 'a variety of settings' as promised. Output A's 'subsequent sections extend the framework' is slightly more mechanical and less informative about what each section actually contains. Both are usable, but Output B has tighter fit to the draft's announced structure and scope.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Preferred by blind review

The review is organized by data structure and modeling setting, covering shared frailty, spatial, multivariate, and cure models, among others. For each class of models we describe the frailty distribution, the resulting dependence structure, and the estimation procedures available in standard software.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · Bayesian survival analysis with BUGS

Survival analysis is one of the most important fields of statistics in medicine and biological sciences. In addition, the computational advances in the last decades have favored the use of Bayesian methods in this context, providing a flexible and powerful alternative to the traditional frequentist…

Read full passage excerpt

Survival analysis is one of the most important fields of statistics in medicine and biological sciences. In addition, the computational advances in the last decades have favored the use of Bayesian methods in this context, providing a flexible and powerful alternative to the traditional frequentist approach. The objective of this article is to summarize some of the most popular Bayesian survival models, such as accelerated failure time, proportional hazards, mixture cure, competing risks, multi-state, frailty, and joint models of longitudinal and survival data. Moreover, an implementation of each presented model is provided using a BUGS syntax that can be run with JAGS from the R programming language. Reference to other Bayesian R-packages is also discussed.

Card 2 · Scalable algorithms for semiparametric accelerated failure time models in high dimensions

Semiparametric accelerated failure time (AFT) models are a useful alternative to Cox proportional hazards models, especially when the assumption of constant hazard ratios is untenable. However, rank-based criteria for fitting AFT models are often nondifferentiable, which poses a computational challe…

Read full passage excerpt

Semiparametric accelerated failure time (AFT) models are a useful alternative to Cox proportional hazards models, especially when the assumption of constant hazard ratios is untenable. However, rank-based criteria for fitting AFT models are often nondifferentiable, which poses a computational challenge in high-dimensional settings. In this article, we propose a new alternating direction method of multipliers algorithm for fitting semiparametric AFT models by minimizing a penalized rank-based loss function. Our algorithm scales well in both the number of subjects and number of predictors, and can easily accommodate a wide range of popular penalties. To improve the selection of tuning parameters, we propose a new criterion which avoids some common problems in cross-validation with censored responses. Through extensive simulation studies, we show that our algorithm and software is much faster than existing methods (which can only be applied to special cases), and we show that estimators w …

Card 3 · spBayesSurv: Fitting Bayesian Spatial Survival Models Using R

Spatial survival analysis has received a great deal of attention over the last 20 years due to the important role that geographical information can play in predicting survival. This paper provides an introduction to a set of programs for implementing some Bayesian spatial survival models in R using…

Read full passage excerpt

Spatial survival analysis has received a great deal of attention over the last 20 years due to the important role that geographical information can play in predicting survival. This paper provides an introduction to a set of programs for implementing some Bayesian spatial survival models in R using the package spBayesSurv. The function survregbayes includes the three most commonly-used semiparametric models: proportional hazards, proportional odds, and accelerated failure time. All manner of censored survival times are simultaneously accommodated including uncensored, interval censored, current-status, left and right censored, and mixtures of these. Left-truncated data are also accommodated. Time-dependent covariates are allowed under the piecewise constant assumption. Both georeferenced and areally observed spatial locations are handled via frailties. Model fit is assessed with conditional Cox-Snell residual plots, and model choice is carried out via the log pseudo marginal likelihood …

Card 4 · A flexible parametric accelerated failure time model

Accelerated failure time (AFT) models are used widely in medical research, though to a much lesser extent than proportional hazards models. In an AFT model, the effect of covariates act to accelerate or decelerate the time to event of interest, i.e. shorten or extend the time to event. Commonly used…

Read full passage excerpt

Accelerated failure time (AFT) models are used widely in medical research, though to a much lesser extent than proportional hazards models. In an AFT model, the effect of covariates act to accelerate or decelerate the time to event of interest, i.e. shorten or extend the time to event. Commonly used parametric AFT models are limited in the underlying shapes that they can capture. In this article, we propose a general parametric AFT model, and in particular concentrate on using restricted cubic splines to model the baseline to provide substantial flexibility. We then extend the model to accommodate time-dependent acceleration factors. Delayed entry is also allowed, and hence, time-dependent covariates. We evaluate the proposed model through simulation, showing substantial improvements compared to standard parametric AFT models. We also show analytically and through simulations that the AFT models are collapsible, suggesting that this model class will be well suited to causal inference. …

Card 5 · Analysis of survival data with non-proportional hazards: A comparison of propensity score weighted methods

One of the most common ways researchers compare survival outcomes across treatments when confounding is present is using Cox regression. This model is limited by its underlying assumption of proportional hazards; in some cases, substantial violations may occur. Here we present and compare approaches…

Read full passage excerpt

One of the most common ways researchers compare survival outcomes across treatments when confounding is present is using Cox regression. This model is limited by its underlying assumption of proportional hazards; in some cases, substantial violations may occur. Here we present and compare approaches which attempt to address this issue, including Cox models with time-varying hazard ratios; parametric accelerated failure time models; Kaplan-Meier curves; and pseudo-observations. To adjust for differences between treatment groups, we use Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting based on the propensity score. We examine clinically meaningful outcome measures that can be computed and directly compared across each method, namely, survival probability at time T, median survival, and restricted mean survival. We conduct simulation studies under a range of scenarios, and determine the biases, coverages, and standard errors of the Average Treatment Effects for each method. We then apply these …

Model-reported card use

Card 1 · scope

Affected output: covering shared frailty, spatial, multivariate, and cure models, among others

Model explanation: This row's enumeration of frailty-adjacent model classes (cure, competing risks, multi-state, joint) guided the choice of which settings the review's organizing sentence should name.

Card 3 · terminology

Affected output: the frailty distribution, the resulting dependence structure, and the estimation procedures available in standard software

Model explanation: This row's parallel listing of model families and their implementation in R supplied the field-native framing of a per-model description covering distributional assumptions and software.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

The review is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the shared frailty model and its basic estimation approaches, while subsequent sections extend the framework to clustered, multivariate, and spatially correlated survival data.

Earlier card-use comparison

The earlier diagnostic compared only cases with reported card use and text on both sides; its scope differs from the overall AI review above.

The blinded model review preferred the Evidence version. Its original rationale appears below.

Read the original model judgment

Both outputs provide coherent continuations grounded in the draft. Output A better matches the draft's stated scope: the draft promises 'in each setting we provide a detailed model description, assumptions, available estimation methods, and R packages.' Output A directly echoes this by mentioning 'frailty distribution, the resulting dependence structure, and the estimation procedures available in standard software'—aligning with model description, assumptions, and estimation methods. It also mentions 'shared frailty, spatial, multivariate, and cure models,' which maps to 'a variety of settings' and connects to source material (e.g., spBayesSurv covers spatial frailty models, the BUGS article mentions frailty and joint models). Output B is also reasonable but is more structurally generic ('Section 2 introduces...while subsequent sections extend...'), providing less substantive content about what the review actually covers. Output A delivers more of the promised detailed substance per setting and better fulfills the draft's stated scope.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.