Literature DB >> 18958616

Evaluating bias correction in weighted proportional hazards regression.

Qing Pan1, Douglas E Schaubel.   

Abstract

Often in observational studies of time to an event, the study population is a biased (i.e., unrepresentative) sample of the target population. In the presence of biased samples, it is common to weight subjects by the inverse of their respective selection probabilities. Pan and Schaubel (Can J Stat 36:111-127, 2008) recently proposed inference procedures for an inverse selection probability weighted (ISPW) Cox model, applicable when selection probabilities are not treated as fixed but estimated empirically. The proposed weighting procedure requires auxiliary data to estimate the weights and is computationally more intense than unweighted estimation. The ignorability of sample selection process in terms of parameter estimators and predictions is often of interest, from several perspectives: e.g., to determine if weighting makes a significant difference to the analysis at hand, which would in turn address whether the collection of auxiliary data is required in future studies; to evaluate previous studies which did not correct for selection bias. In this article, we propose methods to quantify the degree of bias corrected by the weighting procedure in the partial likelihood and Breslow-Aalen estimators. Asymptotic properties of the proposed test statistics are derived. The finite-sample significance level and power are evaluated through simulation. The proposed methods are then applied to data from a national organ failure registry to evaluate the bias in a post-kidney transplant survival model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18958616      PMCID: PMC3367517          DOI: 10.1007/s10985-008-9102-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal        ISSN: 1380-7870            Impact factor:   1.588


  7 in total

1.  External Validity in Policy Evaluations that Choose Sites Purposively.

Authors:  Robert B Olsen; Larry L Orr; Stephen H Bell; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  J Policy Anal Manage       Date:  2013

2.  Inverse propensity weighting to adjust for bias in fatal crash samples.

Authors:  David E Clark; Edward L Hannan
Journal:  Accid Anal Prev       Date:  2012-10-22

3.  The use of propensity scores to assess the generalizability of results from randomized trials.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Stephen R Cole; Catherine P Bradshaw; Philip J Leaf
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc       Date:  2001-04-01       Impact factor: 2.483

4.  Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: The ACTG 320 trial.

Authors:  Stephen R Cole; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-06-14       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Assessing methods for generalizing experimental impact estimates to target populations.

Authors:  Holger L Kern; Elizabeth A Stuart; Jennifer Hill; Donald P Green
Journal:  J Res Educ Eff       Date:  2016-01-14

6.  Female sex, early-onset hypertension, and risk of dementia.

Authors:  Paola Gilsanz; Elizabeth Rose Mayeda; M Maria Glymour; Charles P Quesenberry; Dan M Mungas; Charles DeCarli; Alexander Dean; Rachel A Whitmer
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2017-10-04       Impact factor: 9.910

7.  Assessing the generalizability of randomized trial results to target populations.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Catherine P Bradshaw; Philip J Leaf
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2015-04
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.