4.4 Article

Modelling multiple time-scales with flexible parametric survival models

期刊

BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-022-01773-9

关键词

Multiple time-scales; Flexible parametric survival models; Time-varying covariate; Matched cohort; Cohort studies; Epidemiological methods

资金

  1. Karolinska Institute
  2. Swedish Cancer Society [19 0102]
  3. Swedish Research Council [2019-01965, 2019-00227]
  4. Swedish Research Council [2019-01965] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces a method to model multiple time-scales in survival analysis, avoiding data splitting, saving time, and reducing the likelihood of errors.
Background There are situations when we need to model multiple time-scales in survival analysis. A usual approach in this setting would involve fitting Cox or Poisson models to a time-split dataset. However, this leads to large datasets and can be computationally intensive when model fitting, especially if interest lies in displaying how the estimated hazard rate or survival change along multiple time-scales continuously. Methods We propose to use flexible parametric survival models on the log hazard scale as an alternative method when modelling data with multiple time-scales. By choosing one of the time-scales as reference, and rewriting other time-scales as a function of this reference time-scale, users can avoid time-splitting of the data. Result Through case-studies we demonstrate the usefulness of this method and provide examples of graphical representations of estimated hazard rates and survival proportions. The model gives nearly identical results to using a Poisson model, without requiring time-splitting. Conclusion Flexible parametric survival models are a powerful tool for modelling multiple time-scales. This method does not require splitting the data into small time-intervals, and therefore saves time, helps avoid technological limitations and reduces room for error.

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

4.4
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