4.4 Article

A Model Selection Approach for Variable Selection with Censored Data

期刊

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 271-300

出版社

INT SOC BAYESIAN ANALYSIS
DOI: 10.1214/20-BA1207

关键词

Bayes factors; Bayesian model averaging; conventional priors; model selection; objective priors; predictive matching

资金

  1. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [MTM2016-77501-P]
  2. Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha [SBPLY/17/180501/000491/2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigates variable selection in the presence of censoring in the response, using model selection and an objective Bayesian perspective to address the issue. It demonstrates that a new methodology specifically developed for survival problems outperforms standard approaches in terms of variable selection.
We consider the variable selection problem when the response is subject to censoring. A main particularity of this context is that information content of sampled units varies depending on the censoring times. Our approach is based on model selection where all 2(k) possible models are entertained and we adopt an objective Bayesian perspective where the choice of prior distributions is a delicate issue given the well-known sensitivity of Bayes factors to these prior inputs. We show that borrowing priors from the 'uncensored' literature may lead to unsatisfactory results as this default procedure implicitly assumes a uniform contribution of all units independently on their censoring times. In this paper, we develop specific methodology based on a generalization of the g-priors, explicitly addressing the particularities of survival problems arguing that it behaves comparatively better than standard approaches on the basis of arguments specific to variable selection problems (like e.g. predictive matching) in the particular case of the accelerated failure time model with lognormal errors. We apply the methodology to a recent large epidemiological study about breast cancer survival rates in Castellon, a province of Spain.

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