4.5 Article

Cause-Specific Cumulative Incidence Estimation and the Fine and Gray Model Under Both Left Truncation and Right Censoring

期刊

BIOMETRICS
卷 67, 期 1, 页码 39-49

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01420.x

关键词

Competing risks; Inverse probability weight; Subdistribution hazard; Survival analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The standard estimator for the cause-specific cumulative incidence function in a competing risks setting with left truncated and/or right censored data can be written in two alternative forms. One is a weighted empirical cumulative distribution function and the other a product-limit estimator. This equivalence suggests an alternative view of the analysis of time-to-event data with left truncation and right censoring: individuals who are still at risk or experienced an earlier competing event receive weights from the censoring and truncation mechanisms. As a consequence, inference on the cumulative scale can be performed using weighted versions of standard procedures. This holds for estimation of the cause-specific cumulative incidence function as well as for estimation of the regression parameters in the Fine and Gray proportional subdistribution hazards model. We show that, with the appropriate filtration, a martingale property holds that allows deriving asymptotic results for the proportional subdistribution hazards model in the same way as for the standard Cox proportional hazards model. Estimation of the cause-specific cumulative incidence function and regression on the subdistribution hazard can be performed using standard software for survival analysis if the software allows for inclusion of time-dependent weights. We show the implementation in the R statistical package. The proportional subdistribution hazards model is used to investigate the effect of calendar period as a deterministic external time varying covariate, which can be seen as a special case of left truncation, on AIDS related and non-AIDS related cumulative mortality.

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