Literature DB >> 10474158

Assessment and comparison of prognostic classification schemes for survival data.

E Graf1, C Schmoor, W Sauerbrei, M Schumacher.   

Abstract

Prognostic classification schemes have often been used in medical applications, but rarely subjected to a rigorous examination of their adequacy. For survival data, the statistical methodology to assess such schemes consists mainly of a range of ad hoc approaches, and there is an alarming lack of commonly accepted standards in this field. We review these methods and develop measures of inaccuracy which may be calculated in a validation study in order to assess the usefulness of estimated patient-specific survival probabilities associated with a prognostic classification scheme. These measures are meaningful even when the estimated probabilities are misspecified, and asymptotically they are not affected by random censorship. In addition, they can be used to derive R(2)-type measures of explained residual variation. A breast cancer study will serve for illustration throughout the paper.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10474158     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19990915/30)18:17/18<2529::aid-sim274>3.0.co;2-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  181 in total

1.  A measure of explained risk in the proportional hazards model.

Authors:  Glenn Heller
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Comment: Measures to summarize and compare the predictive capacity of markers.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2010-07-06       Impact factor: 0.968

3.  Bayesian ensemble methods for survival prediction in gene expression data.

Authors:  Vinicius Bonato; Veerabhadran Baladandayuthapani; Bradley M Broom; Erik P Sulman; Kenneth D Aldape; Kim-Anh Do
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 6.937

4.  Explained variation and predictive accuracy in general parametric statistical models: the role of model misspecification.

Authors:  Susanne Rosthøj; Niels Keiding
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 1.588

5.  Evaluation of clinical prognostic models for suicide attempts after a major depressive episode.

Authors:  H C Galfalvy; M A Oquendo; J J Mann
Journal:  Acta Psychiatr Scand       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 6.392

6.  Deep learning for survival outcomes.

Authors:  Jon Arni Steingrimsson; Samantha Morrison
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  BAYESIAN SHRINKAGE METHODS FOR PARTIALLY OBSERVED DATA WITH MANY PREDICTORS.

Authors:  Philip S Boonstra; Bhramar Mukherjee; Jeremy Mg Taylor
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 2.083

8.  Prediction Accuracy Measures for a Nonlinear Model and for Right-Censored Time-to-Event Data.

Authors:  Gang Li; Xiaoyan Wang
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 5.033

9.  Comparing predictions among competing risks models with time-dependent covariates.

Authors:  Giuliana Cortese; Thomas A Gerds; Per K Andersen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Ornstein-Uhlenbeck threshold regression for time-to-event data with and without a cure fraction.

Authors:  Roger Erich; Michael L Pennell
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 1.588

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.