Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23027662›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2013

Empirical likelihood-based confidence intervals for length-biased data.

J Ning, J Qin, M Asgharian, Y Shen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Tests for stochastic ordering under biased sampling.Journal of nonparametric statistics · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

J NingDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. jning@mdanderson.org
J Qin
M Asgharian
Y Shen

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR BREAST CANCER SCREENING STUDIESR01CA079466 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI SHEN, YU · 1999 to 2014
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS CA016672NCI NIH HHS CA079466NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R01 CA079466
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Logistic or other constraints often preclude the possibility of conducting incident cohort studies. A feasible alternative in such cases is to conduct a cross-sectional prevalent cohort study for which we recruit prevalent cases, that is, subjects who have already experienced the initiating event, say the onset of a disease. When the interest lies in estimating the lifespan between the initiating event and a terminating event, say death for instance, such subjects may be followed prospectively until the terminating event or loss to follow-up, whichever happens first. It is well known that prevalent cases have, on average, longer lifespans. As such, they do not constitute a representative random sample from the target population; they comprise a biased sample. If the initiating events are generated from a stationary Poisson process, the so-called stationarity assumption, this bias is called length bias. The current literature on length-biased sampling lacks a simple method for estimating the margin of errors of commonly used summary statistics. We fill this gap by using the empirical likelihood-based confidence intervals by adapting this method to right-censored length-biased survival data. Both large and small sample behaviors of these confidence intervals are studied. We illustrate our method by using a set of data on survival with dementia, collected as part of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging.

Indexed as

Confidence IntervalsLikelihood FunctionsAlzheimer DiseaseCanadaCohort StudiesComputer SimulationCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID23027662
PMCPMC4034580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.