4.5 Article

A tutorial on rank-based coefficient estimation for censored data in small- and large-scale problems

期刊

STATISTICS AND COMPUTING
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 601-614

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11222-012-9333-9

关键词

Accelerated failure time model; Ill-posed problems; Regularization; Survival analysis

资金

  1. US NIH PHS Grant from the Clinical and Translational Science Award program [UL1 RR025008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The analysis of survival endpoints subject to right-censoring is an important research area in statistics, particularly among econometricians and biostatisticians. The two most popular semiparametric models are the proportional hazards model and the accelerated failure time (AFT) model. Rank-based estimation in the AFT model is computationally challenging due to optimization of a non-smooth loss function. Previous work has shown that rank-based estimators may be written as solutions to linear programming (LP) problems. However, the size of the LP problem is O(n (2)+p) subject to n (2) linear constraints, where n denotes sample size and p denotes the dimension of parameters. As n and/or p increases, the feasibility of such solution in practice becomes questionable. Among data mining and statistical learning enthusiasts, there is interest in extending ordinary regression coefficient estimators for low-dimensions into high-dimensional data mining tools through regularization. Applying this recipe to rank-based coefficient estimators leads to formidable optimization problems which may be avoided through smooth approximations to non-smooth functions. We review smooth approximations and quasi-Newton methods for rank-based estimation in AFT models. The computational cost of our method is substantially smaller than the corresponding LP problem and can be applied to small- or large-scale problems similarly. The algorithm described here allows one to couple rank-based estimation for censored data with virtually any regularization and is exemplified through four case studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据