Prediction in Survival Analysis: Model or Medic?

  • Robin Henderson
  • Margaret Jones
Chapter

Abstract

Subjective survival time predictions were obtained from experienced physicians for two groups of lung cancer patients. Predictions are compared with outcome by means of a non-standard loss function, which is also used to assess the accuracy of objective predictions based on proportional hazards models. Neither subjective nor objective predictions are particularly impressive. It is shown that the proportion of variation which can be explained by a proportional hazards model will invariably be relatively low as a result of the underlying assumptions, and hence point predictions should be expected to be relatively inaccurate for this family of models.

Keywords

Point Prediction Single Covariate Censor Survival Data Lung Cancer Data Baseline Survivor Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Henderson, R. (1995), “Problems and Prediction in Survival Data Analysis,” Statistics in Medicine, 14, 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Kent. J.T. and O’Quigley, J. (1988), “Measures of Dependence for Censored Survival Data,” Biometrika, 75, 523–534.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Korn, E.L. and Simon, R. (1990), “Measures of Explained Variation for Survival Data,” Statistics in Medicine, 9, 487–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. O’Quigley, J. and Flandre, P. (1994), “Predictive Capability of Proportional Hazards Regression,” Proc. National Academy of Science, 91, 2310–2314.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Schemper, M. (1990), “The Explained Variation in Proportional Hazards Regression,” Biometrika, 77, 216–218.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Schemper, M. (1992), “Further Results on the Explained Variation in Proportional Hazards Regression,” Biometrika, 79, 202–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Schemper, M. (1994), “The Explained Variation in Proportional Hazards Regression: Correction,” Biometrika. 81, 631.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Verweij, P.J.M. and Van Houwelingen, H.C. (1993), “Cross-Validation in Survival Analysis,” Statistics in Medicine, 12, 2305–2314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin Henderson
    • 1
  • Margaret Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations