4.2 Article

A corrected likelihood method for the proportional hazards model with covariates subject to measurement error

Journal

JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL PLANNING AND INFERENCE
Volume 137, Issue 6, Pages 1816-1828

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jspi.2006.04.007

Keywords

measurement error; piecewise constant hazards; proportional hazards models; unbiased estimating functions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There has been extensive interest in discussing inference methods for survival data when some covariates are subject to measurement error. It is known that standard inferential procedures produce biased estimation if measurement error is not taken into account. With the Cox proportional hazards model a number of methods have been proposed to correct bias induced by measurement error, where the attention centers on utilizing the partial likelihood function. It is also of interest to understand the impact on estimation of the baseline hazard function in settings with mismeasured covariates. In this paper we employ a weakly parametric form for the baseline hazard function and propose simple unbiased estimating functions for estimation of parameters. The proposed method is easy to implement and it reveals the connection between the naive method ignoring measurement error and the corrected method with measurement error accounted for. Simulation studies are carried out to evaluate the performance of the estimators as well as the impact of ignoring measurement error in covariates. As an illustration we apply the proposed methods to analyze a data set arising from the Busselton Health Study [Knuiman, M.W., Cullent, K.J., Bulsara, M.K., Welborn, T.A., Hobbs, M.S.T., 1994. Mortality trends, 1965 to 1989, in Busselton., the site of repeated health surveys and interventions. Austral. J. Public Health 18, 129-135]. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available