Literature DB >> 23436643

Model selection in competing risks regression.

Deborah Kuk1, Ravi Varadhan.   

Abstract

In the analysis of time-to-event data, the problem of competing risks occurs when an individual may experience one, and only one, of m different types of events. The presence of competing risks complicates the analysis of time-to-event data, and standard survival analysis techniques such as Kaplan-Meier estimation, log-rank test and Cox modeling are not always appropriate and should be applied with caution. Fine and Gray developed a method for regression analysis that models the hazard that corresponds to the cumulative incidence function. This model is becoming widely used by clinical researchers and is now available in all the major software environments. Although model selection methods for Cox proportional hazards models have been developed, few methods exist for competing risks data. We have developed stepwise regression procedures, both forward and backward, based on AIC, BIC, and BICcr (a newly proposed criteria that is a modified BIC for competing risks data subject to right censoring) as selection criteria for the Fine and Gray model. We evaluated the performance of these model selection procedures in a large simulation study and found them to perform well. We also applied our procedures to assess the importance of bone mineral density in predicting the absolute risk of hip fracture in the Women's Health Initiative-Observational Study, where mortality was the competing risk. We have implemented our method as a freely available R package called crrstep.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AIC; BIC; Fine and Gray model; competing risks; cumulative incidence; stepwise regression

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23436643     DOI: 10.1002/sim.5762

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


  44 in total

1.  Group and within-group variable selection for competing risks data.

Authors:  Kwang Woo Ahn; Anjishnu Banerjee; Natasha Sahr; Soyoung Kim
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 1.588

2.  Vaginal native tissue repair versus transvaginal mesh repair for apical prolapse: how utilizing different methods of analysis affects the estimated trade-off between reoperation for mesh exposure/erosion and reoperation for recurrent prolapse.

Authors:  Alexis A Dieter; Marcella G Willis-Gray; Alison C Weidner; Anthony G Visco; Evan R Myers
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Association between seropositivity and discontinuation of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors due to ineffectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Yoshikazu Ogawa; Nobunori Takahashi; Atsushi Kaneko; Yuji Hirano; Yasuhide Kanayama; Yuichiro Yabe; Takeshi Oguchi; Takayoshi Fujibayashi; Hideki Takagi; Masahiro Hanabayashi; Koji Funahashi; Masatoshi Hayashi; Seiji Tsuboi; Shuji Asai; Nobuyuki Asai; Takuya Matsumoto; Yasumori Sobue; Naoki Ishiguro; Toshihisa Kojima
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 2.980

4.  Preventing Venous Thromboembolism in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: The ONKOTEV Study.

Authors:  Chiara Alessandra Cella; Giovanni Di Minno; Chiara Carlomagno; Michele Arcopinto; Anna Maria Cerbone; Elide Matano; Antonella Tufano; Florian Lordick; Biagio De Simone; Katja Sibylle Muehlberg; Dario Bruzzese; Laura Attademo; Claudia Arturo; Marta Sodano; Roberto Moretto; Ersilia La Fata; Sabino De Placido
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-04-19

5.  Atypical and anaplastic meningioma: outcomes in a population based study.

Authors:  T Garzon-Muvdi; W Yang; M Lim; H Brem; J Huang
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 4.130

6.  Mapping CHU9D Utility Scores from the PedsQLTM 4.0 SF-15.

Authors:  Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa; Gang Chen; Remo Russo; Katherine Stevens; Karin Dam Petersen; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Random survival forests for competing risks.

Authors:  Hemant Ishwaran; Thomas A Gerds; Udaya B Kogalur; Richard D Moore; Stephen J Gange; Bryan M Lau
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 5.899

8.  Development of a comprehensive health-risk prediction tool for postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Haley Hedlin; Julie Weitlauf; Carolyn J Crandall; Rami Nassir; Jane A Cauley; Lorena Garcia; Robert Brunner; Jennifer Robinson; Marica L Stefanick; John Robbins
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  Outcomes of Immunocompromised Adults Hospitalized With Laboratory-confirmed Influenza in the United States, 2011-2015.

Authors:  Jennifer P Collins; Angela P Campbell; Kyle Openo; Monica M Farley; Charisse Nitura Cummings; Mary Hill; William Schaffner; Mary Lou Lindegren; Ann Thomas; Laurie Billing; Nancy Bennett; Nancy Spina; Marisa Bargsten; Ruth Lynfield; Seth Eckel; Patricia Ryan; Kimberly Yousey-Hindes; Rachel Herlihy; Pam Daily Kirley; Shikha Garg; Evan J Anderson
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 9.079

10.  Nonparametric Assessment of Differences Between Competing Risk Hazard Ratios: Application to Racial Differences in Pediatric Chronic Kidney Disease Progression.

Authors:  Derek K Ng; Daniel A Antiporta; Matthew B Matheson; Alvaro Muñoz
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-01-20       Impact factor: 4.790

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.