Work with exact reported results from versioned evidence records β no guessing from summaries.Know what the science actually supports before you trust the answer.
Press Enter β΅ to analyze
Explore by Goal
"The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error."
- Bertolt Brecht
Quick Analysis Plan
Copied
Plan to recreate Cox models from the extracted data. Key steps: (1) reconstruct survival / time-to-event tables from the extracted fields, (2) specify Cox model formulas (covariates, strata, interactions), (3) implement in R (survival::coxph / cox.zph) or Python (lifelines), (4) diagnose proportionality and heterogeneity, (5) produce reproducible code + figures. Source numbers and variables are taken from the two supplied papers below for transparency and model building (condition categories and recapture/discard rates from fisheries paper; exposure hours, events, sex and experience covariates from running injuries paper).
Primary data sources: and
Long Analysis Plan
Visual plan β Recreate Cox models from extracted data
Visualize input summaries first, then present the stepwise analytical plan and code/diagnostics to reproduce and test Cox proportional hazards models using the extracted summaries from both papers.
Stepwise analytical plan (reproducible)
Reconstruct time-to-event / risk sets: From the extracted summaries produce the minimal datasets required for Cox modeling. For the running paper: use exposure-hours and number of first-events (163 injuries) and group-level covariates (sex, experience, BMI categories) to reconstruct approximate person-time or use discrete-time Cox with grouped data. For the gag study: use individual-level records if available (authors used 3,954 records); if not, create a stratified aggregated survival table by condition category and available covariates ().
Specify Cox model formulae (examples):
Gag study: Surv(time, event) ~ condition_category + depth_interval + size + strata(release_year) + cluster(vessel) β include frailty/random effect for heterogeneity if needed.
Running study: Surv(time_hours, event) ~ sex + age + experience + BMI_cat + sport_type + strata(sex) or fit sex-specific models as authors did ().
Implementation choices (recommended):
R: survival::coxph, cox.zph (proportionality), survminer for plots, coxme for mixed-effects/frailty terms.
Python: lifelines.CoxPHFitter with robust SEs and check_assumptions(); use strata and penalizers for small samples.
Use cluster-robust SEs if recaptures are correlated (e.g., vessel, angler) and include time-dependent covariates or interactions if PH violated.
Diagnostics and validation: check Schoenfeld residuals (cox.zph / coxph tests), plot scaled Schoenfeld residuals, inspect influential observations (dfbeta), test non-linearity (martingale residuals), compare AIC/likelihood, and assess model fit by concordance and calibration plots.
Sensitivity analyses: (a) sex-stratified models (running); (b) collapse condition categories differently; (c) include frailty/random-effects; (d) re-run with interval-censoring or grouped-time Cox if only summary exposure is available; (e) quantify how unmeasured predation or reporting bias in recaptures would change HR estimates (bias analysis).
Reporting and reproducibility: Provide the exact code (R/Python), random seeds, package versions, and a README describing how aggregated counts were reconstructed from the extracts. Note limitations: reconstructed datasets produce approximation error β mark as such and do not over-interpret causal claims (; ).
Minimal, reproducible code snippets (conceptual)
R (conceptual):
library(survival)
# example formula
fit <- coxph(Surv(time, event) ~ condition + size + strata(release_year) + cluster(vessel), data = gag_df)
summary(fit)
cox.zph(fit) # proportional hazards test
# frailty example
fit_f <- coxph(Surv(time, event) ~ condition + frailty(vessel), data=gag_df)
Reconstruction from aggregated summaries introduces approximation error β ideally obtain raw individual-level datasets (authors mention availability routes) before definitive inference ().
Both original analyses flagged potential biases (self-report, short follow-up, unmeasured confounding) β sensitivity analyses and transparent uncertainty quantification are required ().
If you want full reproduction: click Run AI Scientist Analysis to (A) request raw datasets or reconstruct aggregate risk-sets algorithmically from the extracted summaries, (B) run R/Python Cox regressions with diagnostics and sensitivity analyses, (C) output reproducible code, tables, and publication-ready figures.
Reconstruct grouped time-to-event tables from published summaries and fit CoxPH models (with robust SEs and frailty) to estimate hazard ratios consistent with the extracted gag and running study summaries.
Get emailed when your analysis is done!
We'll email you the results when your analysis is finished.
Hypothesis Graveyard
Hypothesis: Published hazard ratios are exact and reproducible from summaries alone β falsified because aggregated summaries lack individual time-to-event granularity and censoring patterns, producing identification gaps.
Hypothesis: PH assumption always holds in these datasets β falsified because authors and typical field data often show time-varying hazards requiring tests (cox.zph) and potential time-dependent covariates.