Literature DB >> 1581480

Prediction in censored survival data: a comparison of the proportional hazards and linear regression models.

G Heller1, J S Simonoff.   

Abstract

Although the analysis of censored survival data using the proportional hazards and linear regression models is common, there has been little work examining the ability of these estimators to predict time to failure. This is unfortunate, since a predictive plot illustrating the relationship between time to failure and a continuous covariate can be far more informative regarding the risk associated with the covariate than a Kaplan-Meier plot obtained by discretizing the variable. In this paper the predictive power of the Cox (1972, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 34, 187-202) proportional hazards estimator and the Buckley-James (1979, Biometrika 66, 429-436) censored regression estimator are compared. Using computer simulations and heuristic arguments, it is shown that the choice of method depends on the censoring proportion, strength of the regression, the form of the censoring distribution, and the form of the failure distribution. Several examples are provided to illustrate the usefulness of the methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1581480

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


  9 in total

1.  Empirical likelihood analysis of the Buckley-James estimator.

Authors:  Mai Zhou; Gang Li
Journal:  J Multivar Anal       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.473

2.  Measures of explained variation for a regression model used in survival analysis.

Authors:  K Akazawa
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 4.460

3.  Renovating interval-censored responses.

Authors:  P J Smith
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 1.588

4.  The Added Value of Circulating Tumor Cell Enumeration to Standard Markers in Assessing Prognosis in a Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Population.

Authors:  Glenn Heller; Karim Fizazi; Robert McCormack; Arturo Molina; David MacLean; Iain J Webb; Fred Saad; Johann S de Bono; Howard I Scher
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2016-09-27       Impact factor: 12.531

5.  Considerations in the statistical analysis of hemodialysis patient survival.

Authors:  Christos Argyropoulos; Chung-Chou H Chang; Laura Plantinga; Nancy Fink; Neil Powe; Mark Unruh
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2009-07-30       Impact factor: 10.121

6.  Prognostic significance of pathologic nodal status in patients with resected pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Michael G House; Mithat Gönen; William R Jarnagin; Michael D'Angelica; Ronald P DeMatteo; Yuman Fong; Murray F Brennan; Peter J Allen
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-09-04       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Time to recurrence and survival in serous ovarian tumors predicted from integrated genomic profiles.

Authors:  Parminder K Mankoo; Ronglai Shen; Nikolaus Schultz; Douglas A Levine; Chris Sander
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Expression of the Carboxy-Terminal Portion of MUC16/CA125 Induces Transformation and Tumor Invasion.

Authors:  Thapi D Rao; Huasong Tian; Xun Ma; Xiujun Yan; Sahityasri Thapi; Nikolaus Schultz; Nestor Rosales; Sebastien Monette; Amy Wang; David M Hyman; Douglas A Levine; David Solit; David R Spriggs
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-12       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Bayesian sample size determination for cost-effectiveness studies with censored data.

Authors:  Daniel P Beavers; James D Stamey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.