A Bayesian network interpretation of the Cox's proportional hazard model

IF 3.2 3区 计算机科学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Jidapa Kraisangka , Marek J. Druzdzel
{"title":"A Bayesian network interpretation of the Cox's proportional hazard model","authors":"Jidapa Kraisangka ,&nbsp;Marek J. Druzdzel","doi":"10.1016/j.ijar.2018.09.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Cox's proportional hazards (CPH) model is quite likely the most popular modeling technique in survival analysis. While the CPH model is able to represent a relationship between a collection of risks and their common effect, Bayesian networks have become an attractive alternative with an increased modeling power and far broader applications. Our paper focuses on a Bayesian network interpretation of the CPH model (BN-Cox). We provide a method of encoding knowledge from existing CPH models in the process of knowledge engineering for Bayesian networks. This is important because in practice we often have CPH models available in the literature and no access to the original data from which they have been derived.</p><p>We compare the accuracy of the resulting BN-Cox model to the original CPH model, Kaplan–Meier estimate, and Bayesian networks learned from data, including Naive Bayes, Tree Augmented Naive Bayes, Noisy-Max, and parameter learning by means of the EM algorithm. BN-Cox model came out as the most accurate of all BN approaches and very close to the original CPH model.</p><p>We study two approaches for simplifying the BN-Cox model for the sake of representational and computational efficiency: (1) parent divorcing and (2) removing less important risk factors. We show that removing less important risk factors leads to smaller loss of accuracy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":13842,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Approximate Reasoning","volume":"103 ","pages":"Pages 195-211"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ijar.2018.09.007","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Approximate Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888613X17306308","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Cox's proportional hazards (CPH) model is quite likely the most popular modeling technique in survival analysis. While the CPH model is able to represent a relationship between a collection of risks and their common effect, Bayesian networks have become an attractive alternative with an increased modeling power and far broader applications. Our paper focuses on a Bayesian network interpretation of the CPH model (BN-Cox). We provide a method of encoding knowledge from existing CPH models in the process of knowledge engineering for Bayesian networks. This is important because in practice we often have CPH models available in the literature and no access to the original data from which they have been derived.

We compare the accuracy of the resulting BN-Cox model to the original CPH model, Kaplan–Meier estimate, and Bayesian networks learned from data, including Naive Bayes, Tree Augmented Naive Bayes, Noisy-Max, and parameter learning by means of the EM algorithm. BN-Cox model came out as the most accurate of all BN approaches and very close to the original CPH model.

We study two approaches for simplifying the BN-Cox model for the sake of representational and computational efficiency: (1) parent divorcing and (2) removing less important risk factors. We show that removing less important risk factors leads to smaller loss of accuracy.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Cox比例风险模型的贝叶斯网络解释
Cox比例风险(CPH)模型可能是生存分析中最流行的建模技术。虽然CPH模型能够表示风险集合及其共同影响之间的关系,但贝叶斯网络已经成为一种有吸引力的替代方案,其建模能力增强,应用范围更广。本文重点研究了CPH模型的贝叶斯网络解释(BN-Cox)。在贝叶斯网络的知识工程过程中,提出了一种对已有CPH模型中的知识进行编码的方法。这一点很重要,因为在实践中,我们经常有文献中可用的CPH模型,而无法访问导出CPH模型的原始数据。我们将得到的BN-Cox模型的准确性与原始CPH模型、Kaplan-Meier估计和从数据中学习的贝叶斯网络(包括朴素贝叶斯、树增强朴素贝叶斯、noise - max和通过EM算法进行参数学习)进行了比较。BN- cox模型是所有BN方法中最准确的,与原始CPH模型非常接近。为了提高代表性和计算效率,我们研究了两种简化BN-Cox模型的方法:(1)父母离婚和(2)去除不太重要的风险因素。我们表明,去除不太重要的风险因素导致较小的准确性损失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 工程技术-计算机:人工智能
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.80%
发文量
170
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Approximate Reasoning is intended to serve as a forum for the treatment of imprecision and uncertainty in Artificial and Computational Intelligence, covering both the foundations of uncertainty theories, and the design of intelligent systems for scientific and engineering applications. It publishes high-quality research papers describing theoretical developments or innovative applications, as well as review articles on topics of general interest. Relevant topics include, but are not limited to, probabilistic reasoning and Bayesian networks, imprecise probabilities, random sets, belief functions (Dempster-Shafer theory), possibility theory, fuzzy sets, rough sets, decision theory, non-additive measures and integrals, qualitative reasoning about uncertainty, comparative probability orderings, game-theoretic probability, default reasoning, nonstandard logics, argumentation systems, inconsistency tolerant reasoning, elicitation techniques, philosophical foundations and psychological models of uncertain reasoning. Domains of application for uncertain reasoning systems include risk analysis and assessment, information retrieval and database design, information fusion, machine learning, data and web mining, computer vision, image and signal processing, intelligent data analysis, statistics, multi-agent systems, etc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信