Literature DB >> 14969473

Discrete proportional hazards models for mismeasured outcomes.

Amalia S Meier1, Barbra A Richardson, James P Hughes.   

Abstract

Outcome mismeasurement can lead to biased estimation in several contexts. Magder and Hughes (1997, American Journal of Epidemiology 146, 195-203) showed that failure to adjust for imperfect outcome measures in logistic regression analysis can conservatively bias estimation of covariate effects, even when the mismeasurement rate is the same across levels of the covariate. Other authors have addressed the need to account for mismeasurement in survival analysis in selected cases (Snapinn, 1998, Biometrics 54, 209-218; Gelfand and Wang, 2000, Statistics in Medicine 19, 1865-1879; Balasubramanian and Lagakos, 2001, Biometrics 57, 1048-1058, 2003, Biometrika 90, 171-182). We provide a general, more widely applicable, adjusted proportional hazards (APH) method for estimation of cumulative survival and hazard ratios in discrete time when the outcome is measured with error. We show that mismeasured failure status in a standard proportional hazards (PH) model can conservatively bias estimation of hazard ratios and that inference, in most practical situations, is more severely affected by poor specificity than by poor sensitivity. However, in simulations over a wide range of conditions, the APH method with correctly specified mismeasurement rates performs very well.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14969473     DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2003.00109.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  29 in total

1.  Nonparametric and Semiparametric Analysis of Current Status Data Subject to Outcome Misclassification.

Authors:  Victor G Sal Y Rosas; James P Hughes
Journal:  Stat Commun Infect Dis       Date:  2010-04-21

2.  Assessing treatment effects with surrogate survival outcomes using an internal validation subsample.

Authors:  Jarcy Zee; Sharon X Xie
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 2.486

3.  Nonparametric Adjustment for Measurement Error in Time-to-Event Data: Application to Risk Prediction Models.

Authors:  Danielle Braun; Malka Gorfine; Hormuzd A Katki; Argyrios Ziogas; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 5.033

4.  Validation data-based adjustments for outcome misclassification in logistic regression: an illustration.

Authors:  Robert H Lyles; Li Tang; Hillary M Superak; Caroline C King; David D Celentano; Yungtai Lo; Jack D Sobel
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 5.  A "hot" topic in dyslipidemia management--"how to beat a flush": optimizing niacin tolerability to promote long-term treatment adherence and coronary disease prevention.

Authors:  Terry A Jacobson
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 7.616

6.  Methods for Employing Information About Uncertainty of Ascertainment of Events in Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Yiming Chen; John Lawrence; H M James Hung; Norman Stockbridge
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 1.778

7.  Practical considerations when analyzing discrete survival times using the grouped relative risk model.

Authors:  Rachel MacKay Altman; Andrew Henrey
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2017-10-11       Impact factor: 1.588

8.  Recent incarceration and risk of first-time injection initiation assistance: A prospective cohort study of persons who inject drugs.

Authors:  Zachary Bouck; Sonia Jain; Xiaoying Sun; M-J Milloy; Dan Werb; Kanna Hayashi
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2020-04-29       Impact factor: 4.492

9.  Nonparametric discrete survival function estimation with uncertain endpoints using an internal validation subsample.

Authors:  Jarcy Zee; Sharon X Xie
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Use of administrative data to increase the practicality of clinical trials: Insights from the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Garnet L Anderson; Carolyn J Burns; Joseph Larsen; Pamela A Shaw
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 2.486

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.