Literature DB >> 29468710

Variable selection with group structure in competing risks quantile regression.

Kwang Woo Ahn1, Soyoung Kim1.   

Abstract

We study the group bridge and the adaptive group bridge penalties for competing risks quantile regression with group variables. While the group bridge consistently identifies nonzero group variables, the adaptive group bridge consistently selects variables not only at group level but also at within-group level. We allow the number of covariates to diverge as the sample size increases. The oracle property for both methods is also studied. The performance of the group bridge and the adaptive group bridge is compared in simulation and in a real data analysis. The simulation study shows that the adaptive group bridge selects nonzero within-group variables more consistently than the group bridge. A bone marrow transplant study is provided as an example.
Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adaptive lasso; competing risks quantile regression; group bridge

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29468710      PMCID: PMC5889760          DOI: 10.1002/sim.7619

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


  10 in total

1.  Quantile regression models with multivariate failure time data.

Authors:  Guosheng Yin; Jianwen Cai
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Variable selection for multivariate failure time data.

Authors:  Jianwen Cai; Jianqing Fan; Runze Li; Haibo Zhou
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.445

3.  Bayesian quantile regression for censored data.

Authors:  Brian J Reich; Luke B Smith
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2013-07-11       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Quantile Regression for Competing Risks Data with Missing Cause of Failure.

Authors:  Yanqing Sun; Huixia Judy Wang; Peter B Gilbert
Journal:  Stat Sin       Date:  2012-04-01       Impact factor: 1.261

5.  Inference for cumulative incidence quantiles via parametric and nonparametric approaches.

Authors:  Minjung Lee; Jason P Fine
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-09-05       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Penalized variable selection in competing risks regression.

Authors:  Zhixuan Fu; Chirag R Parikh; Bingqing Zhou
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2016-03-26       Impact factor: 1.588

7.  HLA Mismatch Is Associated with Worse Outcomes after Unrelated Donor Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: An Analysis from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Authors:  Michael R Verneris; Stephanie J Lee; Kwang Woo Ahn; Hai-Lin Wang; Minoo Battiwalla; Yoshihiro Inamoto; Marcelo A Fernandez-Vina; James Gajewski; Joseph Pidala; Reinhold Munker; Mahmoud Aljurf; Wael Saber; Stephen Spellman; John Koreth
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Sparse Estimation and Inference for Censored Median Regression.

Authors:  Justin Hall Shows; Wenbin Lu; Hao Helen Zhang
Journal:  J Stat Plan Inference       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.111

9.  VARIABLE SELECTION FOR CENSORED QUANTILE REGRESION.

Authors:  Huixia Judy Wang; Jianhui Zhou; Yi Li
Journal:  Stat Sin       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 1.261

10.  A group bridge approach for variable selection.

Authors:  Jian Huang; Shuange Ma; Huiliang Xie; Cun-Hui Zhang
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.445

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.