4.5 Article

Stratified Cox models with time-varying effects for national kidney transplant patients: A new blockwise steepest ascent method

期刊

BIOMETRICS
卷 78, 期 3, 页码 1221-1232

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/biom.13473

关键词

kidney transplant; steepest ascent; stratified model; survival analysis; time‐ varying effects

资金

  1. NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analyzing the national transplant database, a blockwise steepest ascent procedure is proposed to fit a time-varying effect model, with a Wald statistic used to test if effects indeed vary over time. The utility of the method is evaluated through simulations and applied to analyze national kidney transplant data, detecting time-varying effects of various risk factors.
Analyzing the national transplant database, which contains about 300,000 kidney transplant patients treated in over 290 transplant centers, may guide the disease management and inform the policy of kidney transplantation. Cox models stratified by centers provide a convenient means to account for the clustered data structure, while studying more than 160 predictors with effects that may vary over time. As fitting a time-varying effect model with such a large sample size may defy any existing software, we propose a blockwise steepest ascent procedure by leveraging the block structure of parameters inherent from the basis expansions for each coefficient function. The algorithm iteratively updates the optimal blockwise search direction, along which the increment of the partial likelihood is maximized. The proposed method can be interpreted from the perspective of the minorization-maximization algorithm and increases the partial likelihood until convergence. We further propose a Wald statistic to test whether the effects are indeed time varying. We evaluate the utility of the proposed method via simulations. Finally, we apply the method to analyze the national kidney transplant data and detect the time-varying nature of the effects of various risk factors.

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