生存风险估计的伽马脆弱模型:在癌症数据中的应用

Q3 Mathematics
K. M. J. Krishna, T. Traison, Sejil Mariya Sebastian, P. George, A. Mathew
{"title":"生存风险估计的伽马脆弱模型:在癌症数据中的应用","authors":"K. M. J. Krishna, T. Traison, Sejil Mariya Sebastian, P. George, A. Mathew","doi":"10.1515/em-2021-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives: In time to event analysis, the risk for an event is usually estimated using Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model. But CPH model has the limitation of biased estimate due to unobserved hidden heterogeneity among the covariates, which can be tackled using frailty models. The best models were usually being identified using Akaike information criteria (AIC). Apart from AIC, the present study aimed to assess predictability of risk models using survival concordance measure. Methods: CPH model and frailty models were used to estimate the risk for breast cancer patient survival, and the frailty variable was assumed to follow gamma distribution. Schoenfeld global test was used to check the proportionality assumption. Survival concordance, AIC and simulation studies were used to identify the significance of frailty. Results: From the univariate analysis it was observed that for the covariate age, the frailty has a significant role (θ = 2.758, p-value: 0.0004) and the corresponding hazard rate was 1.93 compared to that of 1.38 for CPH model (age > 50 vs. ≤ 40). Also the covariates radiotherapy and chemotherapy were found to be significant (θ = 5.944, p-value: <0.001 and θ = 16, p-value: <0.001 respectively). Even though there were only minor differences in hazard rates, the concordance was higher for frailty than CPH model for all the covariates. Further the simulation study showed that the bias and root mean square error (RMSE) obtained for both the methods was almost the same and the concordance measures were higher for frailty model by 12–15%. Conclusions: We conclude that the frailty model is better compared to CPH model as it can account for unobserved random heterogeneity, and if the frailty coefficient doesn’t have an effect it gives exactly the same risk as that of CPH model and this has been established using survival concordance.","PeriodicalId":37999,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gamma frailty model for survival risk estimation: an application to cancer data\",\"authors\":\"K. M. J. Krishna, T. Traison, Sejil Mariya Sebastian, P. George, A. Mathew\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/em-2021-0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objectives: In time to event analysis, the risk for an event is usually estimated using Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model. But CPH model has the limitation of biased estimate due to unobserved hidden heterogeneity among the covariates, which can be tackled using frailty models. The best models were usually being identified using Akaike information criteria (AIC). Apart from AIC, the present study aimed to assess predictability of risk models using survival concordance measure. Methods: CPH model and frailty models were used to estimate the risk for breast cancer patient survival, and the frailty variable was assumed to follow gamma distribution. Schoenfeld global test was used to check the proportionality assumption. Survival concordance, AIC and simulation studies were used to identify the significance of frailty. Results: From the univariate analysis it was observed that for the covariate age, the frailty has a significant role (θ = 2.758, p-value: 0.0004) and the corresponding hazard rate was 1.93 compared to that of 1.38 for CPH model (age > 50 vs. ≤ 40). Also the covariates radiotherapy and chemotherapy were found to be significant (θ = 5.944, p-value: <0.001 and θ = 16, p-value: <0.001 respectively). Even though there were only minor differences in hazard rates, the concordance was higher for frailty than CPH model for all the covariates. Further the simulation study showed that the bias and root mean square error (RMSE) obtained for both the methods was almost the same and the concordance measures were higher for frailty model by 12–15%. Conclusions: We conclude that the frailty model is better compared to CPH model as it can account for unobserved random heterogeneity, and if the frailty coefficient doesn’t have an effect it gives exactly the same risk as that of CPH model and this has been established using survival concordance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37999,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epidemiologic Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epidemiologic Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/em-2021-0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Mathematics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/em-2021-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要目的:在事件时间分析中,通常使用Cox比例风险(CPH)模型来估计事件的风险。但CPH模型由于协变量之间存在未观察到的隐性异质性而存在偏估计的局限性,可以使用脆弱性模型来解决这一问题。最好的模型通常是用赤池信息标准(Akaike information criteria, AIC)确定的。除AIC外,本研究旨在使用生存一致性测量来评估风险模型的可预测性。方法:采用CPH模型和衰弱模型对乳腺癌患者生存风险进行估计,衰弱变量服从伽玛分布。采用Schoenfeld全局检验对比例假设进行检验。采用生存一致性、AIC和模拟研究来确定衰弱的重要性。结果:单因素分析发现,对于协变量年龄,虚弱有显著作用(θ = 2.758, p值:0.0004),相应的危险率为1.93,而CPH模型(年龄bbb50 vs≤40)的危险率为1.38。放疗和化疗的协变量也有显著性差异(θ = 5.944, p值<0.001,θ = 16, p值<0.001)。尽管在危险率上只有微小的差异,但在所有协变量中,脆弱性的一致性高于CPH模型。进一步的仿真研究表明,两种方法得到的偏置和均方根误差(RMSE)几乎相同,脆弱性模型的一致性度量高12-15%。结论:我们的结论是脆弱模型比CPH模型更好,因为它可以解释未观察到的随机异质性,如果脆弱系数没有影响,它给出的风险与CPH模型完全相同,这是通过生存一致性建立的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gamma frailty model for survival risk estimation: an application to cancer data
Abstract Objectives: In time to event analysis, the risk for an event is usually estimated using Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model. But CPH model has the limitation of biased estimate due to unobserved hidden heterogeneity among the covariates, which can be tackled using frailty models. The best models were usually being identified using Akaike information criteria (AIC). Apart from AIC, the present study aimed to assess predictability of risk models using survival concordance measure. Methods: CPH model and frailty models were used to estimate the risk for breast cancer patient survival, and the frailty variable was assumed to follow gamma distribution. Schoenfeld global test was used to check the proportionality assumption. Survival concordance, AIC and simulation studies were used to identify the significance of frailty. Results: From the univariate analysis it was observed that for the covariate age, the frailty has a significant role (θ = 2.758, p-value: 0.0004) and the corresponding hazard rate was 1.93 compared to that of 1.38 for CPH model (age > 50 vs. ≤ 40). Also the covariates radiotherapy and chemotherapy were found to be significant (θ = 5.944, p-value: <0.001 and θ = 16, p-value: <0.001 respectively). Even though there were only minor differences in hazard rates, the concordance was higher for frailty than CPH model for all the covariates. Further the simulation study showed that the bias and root mean square error (RMSE) obtained for both the methods was almost the same and the concordance measures were higher for frailty model by 12–15%. Conclusions: We conclude that the frailty model is better compared to CPH model as it can account for unobserved random heterogeneity, and if the frailty coefficient doesn’t have an effect it gives exactly the same risk as that of CPH model and this has been established using survival concordance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Epidemiologic Methods
Epidemiologic Methods Mathematics-Applied Mathematics
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Epidemiologic Methods (EM) seeks contributions comparable to those of the leading epidemiologic journals, but also invites papers that may be more technical or of greater length than what has traditionally been allowed by journals in epidemiology. Applications and examples with real data to illustrate methodology are strongly encouraged but not required. Topics. genetic epidemiology, infectious disease, pharmaco-epidemiology, ecologic studies, environmental exposures, screening, surveillance, social networks, comparative effectiveness, statistical modeling, causal inference, measurement error, study design, meta-analysis
×
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