Advertisement

Lifetime Data Analysis

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 592–594 | Cite as

Survival models and health sequences: discussion

  • David Oakes
Article
  • 57 Downloads

“I can’t remember things before they happen”

“It’s a poor sort of memory that only works backwards”

— Exchange from “Alice Through the Looking Glass”

I thank the editors for the opportunity to comment on this interesting and challenging paper. The insight that death is a part of life, its ultimate destination, has mathematical as well as philosophical, content. The paper also makes the important general point that the full specification of the joint distributions of a stochastic process can be decomposed (factorized) in many different ways and that the familiar approach based on its forward evolution through time does not always provide the simplest description of its structure. I found the cited paper by Kurland et al. (2009) very helpful in this regard. I would like to make a pitch for what these authors call the “partly conditional approach” which first models the time to death and subsequently the conditional distribution of the health status process among survivors, perhaps to...

References

  1. Efron B (1967) The two-sample problem with censored data. In: leCam L, Neyman J (eds) Proc. 5’th Berkeley Symp Math Statist Prob, vol 4. University of Califormia Press, Berkeley, pp 831–853Google Scholar
  2. Kong S, Nan B, Kalbfleisch JD, Saran R, Hirth R (2017) Conditional modeling of longitudinal data with terminal event. J Am Stat Assoc 71:340–344Google Scholar
  3. Kurland BF, Johnson L, Egleston BL, Diehr PH (2009) Longitudinal data with follow-up truncated by death: match the analysis to the research aims. Stat Sci 24:211–222MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Liang K-Y, Zeger SL (2000) Longitudinal data analysis of continuous and discrete responses for pre-post designs. Sankhya 62:134–148 Series B:MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Oakes D (2016) On the win-ratio statistic in clinical trials with multiple types of event. Biometrika 103:742–745MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Pocock SJ, Ariti CA, Collier TJ, Wang D (2012) The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities. Eur Heart J 13:176–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Senn S (2006) Change from baseline and analysis of covariance revisited. Stat Med 25:4334–4344MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biostatistics and Computational BiologyUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations