Research papers
2008 · Biometrical Journal · 14,136 citations
Simultaneous inference is a common problem in many areas of application. If multiple null hypotheses are tested simultaneously, the probability of rejecting erroneously at least one of them increases beyond the pre-specified significance level. Simultaneous inference procedures have to be used which adjust for multiplicity and thus control the overall type I error rate. In this paper we describe simultaneous inference procedures in general parametric models, where the experimental questions are specified through a linear combination of elemental model parameters. The framework described here is quite general and extends the canonical theory of multiple comparison procedures in ANOVA models to linear regression problems, generalized linear models, linear mixed effects models, the Cox model, robust linear models, etc. Several examples using a variety of different statistical models illustrate the breadth of the results. For the analyses we use the R add-on package multcomp, which provides a convenient interface to the general approach adopted here.
1999 · Journal of the American Statistical Association · 13,764 citations
With explanatory covariates, the standard analysis for competing risks data involves modeling the cause-specific hazard functions via a proportional hazards assumption. Unfortunately, the cause-specific hazard function does not have a direct interpretation in terms of survival probabilities for the particular failure type. In recent years many clinicians have begun using the cumulative incidence function, the marginal failure probabilities for a particular cause, which is intuitively appealing and more easily explained to the nonstatistician. The cumulative incidence is especially relevant in cost-effectiveness analyses in which the survival probabilities are needed to determine treatment utility. Previously, authors have considered methods for combining estimates of the cause-specific hazard functions under the proportional hazards formulation. However, these methods do not allow the analyst to directly assess the effect of a covariate on the marginal probability function. In this article we propose a novel semiparametric proportional hazards model for the subdistribution. Using the partial likelihood principle and weighting techniques, we derive estimation and inference procedures for the finite-dimensional regression parameter under a variety of censoring scenarios. We give a uniformly consistent estimator for the predicted cumulative incidence for an individual with certain covariates; confidence intervals and bands can be obtained analytically or with an easy-to-implement simulation technique. To contrast the two approaches, we analyze a dataset from a breast cancer clinical trial under both models.
1996 · Statistics in Medicine · 9,899 citations
Multivariable regression models are powerful tools that are used frequently in studies of clinical outcomes. These models can use a mixture of categorical and continuous variables and can handle partially observed (censored) responses. However, uncritical application of modelling techniques can result in models that poorly fit the dataset at hand, or, even more likely, inaccurately predict outcomes on new subjects. One must know how to measure qualities of a model's fit in order to avoid poorly fitted or overfitted models. Measurement of predictive accuracy can be difficult for survival time data in the presence of censoring. We discuss an easily interpretable index of predictive discrimination as well as methods for assessing calibration of predicted survival probabilities. Both types of predictive accuracy should be unbiasedly validated using bootstrapping or cross-validation, before using predictions in a new data series. We discuss some of the hazards of poorly fitted and overfitted regression models and present one modelling strategy that avoids many of the problems discussed. The methods described are applicable to all regression models, but are particularly needed for binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes. Methods are illustrated with a survival analysis in prostate cancer using Cox regression.
2009 · Epidemiology · 5,024 citations
The performance of prediction models can be assessed using a variety of methods and metrics. Traditional measures for binary and survival outcomes include the Brier score to indicate overall model performance, the concordance (or c) statistic for discriminative ability (or area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve), and goodness-of-fit statistics for calibration.Several new measures have recently been proposed that can be seen as refinements of discrimination measures, including variants of the c statistic for survival, reclassification tables, net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). Moreover, decision-analytic measures have been proposed, including decision curves to plot the net benefit achieved by making decisions based on model predictions.We aimed to define the role of these relatively novel approaches in the evaluation of the performance of prediction models. For illustration, we present a case study of predicting the presence of residual tumor versus benign tissue in patients with testicular cancer (n = 544 for model development, n = 273 for external validation).We suggest that reporting discrimination and calibration will always be important for a prediction model. Decision-analytic measures should be reported if the predictive model is to be used for clinical decisions. Other measures of performance may be warranted in specific applications, such as reclassification metrics to gain insight into the value of adding a novel predictor to an established model.
1967 · Progress of Theoretical Physics · 5 citations
Progress of Theoretical Physics Vol. 50 No. 6 (1973) pp. 1973-1980 Violation of the ǀΔIǀ=1/2 Rule in K→3π Decays Kiyoshi Kudo, Katsuhiko Ohya and Takamitsu Oka