Lifetime Data Analysis

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 94–115 | Cite as

A two-stage estimation in the Clayton–Oakes model with marginal linear transformation models for multivariate failure time data

  • Chyong-Mei Chen
  • Chang-Yung Yu


This paper considers the analysis of multivariate survival data where the marginal distributions are specified by semiparametric transformation models, a general class including the Cox model and the proportional odds model as special cases. First, consideration is given to the situation where the joint distribution of all failure times within the same cluster is specified by the Clayton–Oakes model (Clayton, Biometrika 65:141–151, l978; Oakes, J R Stat Soc B 44:412–422, 1982). A two-stage estimation procedure is adopted by first estimating the marginal parameters under the independence working assumption, and then the association parameter is estimated from the maximization of the full likelihood function with the estimators of the marginal parameters plugged in. The asymptotic properties of all estimators in the semiparametric model are derived. For the second situation, the third and higher order dependency structures are left unspecified, and interest focuses on the pairwise correlation between any two failure times. Thus, the pairwise association estimate can be obtained in the second stage by maximizing the pairwise likelihood function. Large sample properties for the pairwise association are also derived. Simulation studies show that the proposed approach is appropriate for practical use. To illustrate, a subset of the data from the Diabetic Retinopathy Study is used.


Clayton–Oakes model Linear transformation model Two-stage estimation procedure Pairwise likelihood 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersen EW (2004) Composite likelihood and two-stage estimation in family studies. Biostatistics 5: 15–30MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen EW (2005) Two-stage estimation in copula models used in family studies. Lifetime Data Anal 11: 333–350MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandeen-Roche KJ, Liang KY (1996) Modelling failure-time associations in data with multiple levels of clustering. Biometrika 83: 29–39MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown BW, Hollander M, Korwar RM (1974) Nonparametric tests of independence for censored data with applications to heart transplant studies. In: Proschan F, Serfling RG (eds) Reliability and biometry: statistical analysis of lifelength. SIAM, Philadelphia, pp 327–354Google Scholar
  5. Chen YH (2009) Weighted Breslow-type and maximum likelihood estimation in semiparametric transformation models. Biometrika 96: 591–600MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen K, Jin Z, Ying Z (2002) Semiparametric analysis of transformation models with censored data. Biometrika 89: 659–668MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng SC, Wei LJ, Ying Z (1997) Predicting survival probabilities with semiparametric transformation models. J Am Stat Assoc 92: 227–235MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clayton DG (1978) A model for association in bivariate life tables and its applications in epidemiological studies of familial tendency in chronic disease incidence. Biometrika 65: 141–151MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dabrowska DM, Doksum KA (1988) Estimation and testing in the two-sample generalized odds-rate model. J Am Stat Assoc 83: 744–749MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Genest C, MacKay J (1986) The joy of copulas: bivariate distributions with uniform marginals. Am Stat 40: 280–283MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glidden DV (2000) A two-stage estimator of the dependence parameter for the Clayton–Oakes model. Lifetime Data Anal 6: 141–156MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glidden DV, Self SG (1999) Semiparametric likelihood estimation in the Clayton–Oakes failure time model. Scand J Stat 26: 363–372MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hattori S (2008) Checking the linear transformation model for clustered failure time observations. Lifetime Data Anal 14: 253–266MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huster WJ, Brookmeyer R, Sef SG (1989) Modelling paired survival data with covariates. Biometric 45: 145–156MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jin Z, Lin DY, Ying Z (2006) Rank regression analysis of multivariate failure time data based on marginal linear models. Scand J Stat 33: 1–23MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein JP (1992) Semiparametric estimation of random effects using the Cox model based on the EM algorithm. Biometrics 48: 795–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuk AYC (2007) A hybrid pairwise likelihood method. Biometrika 94: 939–952MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee EW, Wei LJ, Amato DA (1992) Cox-type regression analysis for large numbers of small groups of correlated failure time observations. In: Klein JP, Goel PK (eds) Survival analysis: state of the art. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 237–247Google Scholar
  19. Lin DY (1994) Cox regression analysis of multivariate failure time data: the marginal approach. Stat Med 13: 2233–2247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lu W (2005) Marginal regression of multivariate event times based on linear transformation models. Lifetime Data Anal 11: 389–404MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marshall AW, Olkin I (1988) Families of multivariate distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 83: 834–841MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Massonnet G, Janssen P, Duchateau L (2009) Modelling udder infection data using copula models for quadruples. J Stat Plan Infer 139: 3865–3877MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murphy SA (1994) Consistency in a proportional hazards model incorporating a random effect. Ann Stat 22: 712–731MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murphy SA (1995) Asymptotic theory for the frailty model. Ann Stat 23: 182–198MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nielsen GG, Gill RD, Andersen PK, Sørensen TIA (1992) A counting process approach to maximum likelihood estimation in frailty models. Scand J Stat 19: 25–43MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Oakes D (1982) A model for association in bivariate survival data. J R Stat Soc Ser B 44: 412–422MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Oakes D (1989) Bivariate survival models induced by frailties. J Am Stat Assoc 84: 487–493MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parner ET (1998) Asymptotic theory for the correlated gamma-frailty model. Ann Stat 26: 183–214MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parner ET (2001) A composite likelihood approach to multivariate survival data. Scand J Stat 28: 295–302MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pipper CB, Martinussen T (2004) An estimating equation for parametric shared frailty models with marginal additive hazards. J R Stat Soc Ser B 66: 207–220MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pollard D (1990) Empirical processes: theory and applications, NSFCBMS regional conference series in probability and statistics. Institute of Mathematical Statistics and American Statistical Association, HaywardGoogle Scholar
  32. Prentice RL, Hsu L (1997) Regression on hazard ratios and cross ratios in multivariate failure time analysis. Biometrika 84: 349–363MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ripatti S, Palmgren J (2000) Estimation of multivariate frailty models using penalized partial likelihood. Biometrics 56: 1016–1022MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shih JH, Louis TA (1995) Inferences on the association parameter in copula models for bivariate survival data. Biometrics 51: 1384–1399MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shih JH, Lu SE (2007) Analysis of failure time data with multilevel clustering, with application to the child vitamin a intervention trial in Nepal. Biometrics 63: 673–680MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spiekerman CF, Lin DY (1998) Marginal regression models for multivariate failure time data. J Am Stat Assoc 93: 1164–1175MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wei LJ, Lin DY, Weissfeld L (1989) Regression analysis of multivariate incomplete failure time data by modeling marginal distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 84: 1065–1073MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zeng D, Lin DY (2006) Efficient estimation of semiparametric transformation models for counting processes. Biometrika 93: 627–640MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Statistics and Informatics ScienceProvidence UniversityTaichungTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Department of Financial and Computational MathematicsProvidence UniversityTaichungTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations