跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要在临床试验中估计疫苗对不同病原体基因型结局的效应,并通过协变量调整开展推断,直接对应因果推断。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
David Benkeser
Peter B. Gilbert
Marco Carone

利用机器学习估计和检验疫苗筛效应

研究问题
疫苗效力是否随病原体基因型变化,以及如何在竞争风险框架中调整预测结局或删失的协变量,改善效应估计与推断?
方法与思路
作者针对不同基因型的累积发生率,在疫苗筛效应分析中使用集成机器学习调整协变量,并推导估计量的统计推断结果。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,新方法改善有效性与效率;HIV 和疟疾试验分析中精度提高,并在作者认为更合理的假设下提供更强筛效应证据。
阅读关注点
应核对基因型特异效应的定义、竞争风险与删失条件、机器学习拟合如何进入推断,以及效率比较所依据的基准和假设。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;改善幅度及假设合理性属于作者陈述,不能据此断言所有疫苗试验均获同样提升。

原文摘要

When available, vaccines are an effective means of disease prevention. Unfortunately, efficacious vaccines have not yet been developed for several major infectious diseases, including HIV and malaria. Vaccine sieve analysis studies whether and how the efficacy of a vaccine varies with the genetics of the pathogen of interest, which can guide subsequent vaccine development and deployment. In sieve analyses, the effect of the vaccine on the cumulative incidence corresponding to each of several possible genotypes is often assessed within a competing risks framework. In the context of clinical trials, the estimators employed in these analyses generally do not account for covariates, even though the latter may be predictive of the study endpoint or censoring. Motivated by two recent preventive vaccine efficacy trials for HIV and malaria, we develop new methodology for vaccine sieve analysis. Our approach offers improved validity and efficiency relative to existing approaches by allowing covariate adjustment through ensemble machine learning. We derive results that indicate how to perform statistical inference using our estimators. Our analysis of the HIV and malaria trials shows markedly increased precision -- up to doubled efficiency in both trials -- under more plausible assumptions compared with standard methodology. Our findings provide greater evidence for vaccine sieve effects in both trials.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文