Literature DB >> 26563504

Application of a hazard-based visual predictive check to evaluate parametric hazard models.

Yeamin Huh1, Matthew M Hutmacher2.   

Abstract

Parametric models used in time to event analyses are evaluated typically by survival-based visual predictive checks (VPC). Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the observed data are compared with those estimated using model-simulated data. Because the derivative of the log of the survival curve is related to the hazard--the typical quantity modeled in parametric analysis--isolation, interpretation and correction of deficiencies in the hazard model determined by inspection of survival-based VPC's is indirect and thus more difficult. The purpose of this study is to assess the performance of nonparametric hazard estimators of hazard functions to evaluate their viability as VPC diagnostics. Histogram-based and kernel-smoothing estimators were evaluated in terms of bias of estimating the hazard for Weibull and bathtub-shape hazard scenarios. After the evaluation of bias, these nonparametric estimators were assessed as a method for VPC evaluation of the hazard model. The results showed that nonparametric hazard estimators performed reasonably at the sample sizes studied with greater bias near the boundaries (time equal to 0 and last observation) as expected. Flexible bandwidth and boundary correction methods reduced these biases. All the nonparametric estimators indicated a misfit of the Weibull model when the true hazard was a bathtub shape. Overall, hazard-based VPC plots enabled more direct interpretation of the VPC results compared to survival-based VPC plots.

Keywords:  Hazard; Survival analysis; Time to event analysis; Visual predictive check

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26563504     DOI: 10.1007/s10928-015-9454-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn        ISSN: 1567-567X            Impact factor:   2.745


  11 in total

1.  A population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis of repeated measures time-to-event pharmacodynamic responses: the antiemetic effect of ondansetron.

Authors:  E H Cox; C Veyrat-Follet; S L Beal; E Fuseau; S Kenkare; L B Sheiner
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1999-12

2.  Hazard function estimators: a simulation study.

Authors:  K R Hess; D M Serachitopol; B W Brown
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1999-11-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Residuals for proportional hazards models with interval-censored survival data.

Authors:  C P Farrington
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Modelling of pain intensity and informative dropout in a dental pain model after naproxcinod, naproxen and placebo administration.

Authors:  Marcus A Björnsson; Ulrika S H Simonsson
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.335

5.  Disease progress and response to treatment as predictors of survival, disability, cognitive impairment and depression in Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Thuy C Vu; John G Nutt; Nicholas H G Holford
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.335

6.  Parametric survival analysis and taxonomy of hazard functions for the generalized gamma distribution.

Authors:  Christopher Cox; Haitao Chu; Michael F Schneider; Alvaro Muñoz
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Modeling and simulation of the time course of asenapine exposure response and dropout patterns in acute schizophrenia.

Authors:  L E Friberg; R de Greef; T Kerbusch; M O Karlsson
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 6.875

8.  A comparison of the generalized gamma and exponentiated Weibull distributions.

Authors:  Christopher Cox; Matthew Matheson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Hazard rate estimation under random censoring with varying kernels and bandwidths.

Authors:  H G Müller; J L Wang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Considerations for the prediction of survival time in pancreatic cancer based on registry data.

Authors:  Gaurav Bajaj; Erin Dombrowsky; Qilu Yu; Banke Agarwal; Jeffrey S Barrett
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2013-07-12       Impact factor: 2.745

View more
  6 in total

1.  Kernel-Based Visual Hazard Comparison (kbVHC): a Simulation-Free Diagnostic for Parametric Repeated Time-to-Event Models.

Authors:  Sebastiaan C Goulooze; Pyry A J Välitalo; Catherijne A J Knibbe; Elke H J Krekels
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 4.009

2.  Development and performance of npde for the evaluation of time-to-event models.

Authors:  M Cerou; M Lavielle; K Brendel; M Chenel; E Comets
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 4.200

3.  Prognostic modeling of predictive maintenance with survival analysis for mobile work equipment.

Authors:  Zhen Yang; Juho Kanniainen; Tomi Krogerus; Frank Emmert-Streib
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  Population Exposure-Response Modeling of Naloxegol in Patients With Noncancer-Related Pain and Opioid-Induced Constipation.

Authors:  N Al-Huniti; J C Nielsen; M M Hutmacher; J Lappalainen; K Cantagallo; M Sostek
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2016-07-20

5.  An evaluation of overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia and the relationship with glasdegib treatment and exposure.

Authors:  Swan Lin; Naveed Shaik; Geoffrey Chan; Jorge E Cortes; Ana Ruiz-Garcia
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 3.333

6.  Finding the right hazard function for time-to-event modeling: A tutorial and Shiny application.

Authors:  Rob C Van Wijk; Ulrika S H Simonsson
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2022-04-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.