ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2016
Inference for survival prediction under the regularized Cox model.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robust estimation of the expected survival probabilities from high-dimensional Cox models with biomarker-by-treatment interactions in randomized clinical trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Trial
- Habitat Analysis for Risk Prediction of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Comparative Study of Different MRI Sequences and Regional Combinations.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Analysis of the time to breast cancer diagnosis in Cuba: an observational study.BMC public health · 2025Observational
- Semi-supervised ROC analysis for reliable and streamlined evaluation of phenotyping algorithms.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- EFFICIENT ESTIMATION OF THE MAXIMAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN MULTIPLE PREDICTORS AND A SURVIVAL OUTCOME.Annals of statistics · 2023Article
- Coupling sparse Cox models with clustering of longitudinal transcriptomics data for trauma prognosis.BioData mining · 2021Article
- RNA m6A Methylation Regulators Multi-Omics Analysis in Prostate Cancer.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Marginal screening for high-dimensional predictors of survival outcomes.Statistica Sinica · 2019Article
- Radiomics as a Quantitative Imaging Biomarker: Practical Considerations and the Current Standpoint in Neuro-oncologic Studies.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018Review
- Effect of Maternally Derived Anti-protein and Anticapsular IgG Antibodies on the Rate of Acquisition of Nasopharyngeal Carriage of Pneumococcus in Newborns.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2018Article
- Cerebrospinal fluid metabolic markers predict prognosis behavior of primary central nervous system lymphoma with high-dose methotrexate-based chemotherapeutic treatment.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When a moderate number of potential predictors are available and a survival model is fit with regularization to achieve variable selection, providing accurate inference on the predicted survival can be challenging. We investigate inference on the predicted survival estimated after fitting a Cox model under regularization guaranteeing the oracle property. We demonstrate that existing asymptotic formulas for the standard errors of the coefficients tend to underestimate the variability for some coefficients, while typical resampling such as the bootstrap tends to overestimate it; these approaches can both lead to inaccurate variance estimation for predicted survival functions. We propose a two-stage adaptation of a resampling approach that brings the estimated error in line with the truth. In stage 1, we estimate the coefficients in the observed data set and in [Formula: see text] resampled data sets, and allow the resampled coefficient estimates to vote on whether each coefficient should be 0. For those coefficients voted as zero, we set both the point and interval estimates to [Formula: see text] In stage 2, to make inference about coefficients not voted as zero in stage 1, we refit the penalized model in the observed data and in the [Formula: see text] resampled data sets with only variables corresponding to those coefficients. We demonstrate that ensemble voting-based point and interval estimators of the coefficients perform well in finite samples, and prove that the point estimator maintains the oracle property. We extend this approach to derive inference procedures for survival functions and demonstrate that our proposed interval estimation procedures substantially outperform estimators based on asymptotic inference or standard bootstrap. We further illustrate our proposed procedures to predict breast cancer survival in a gene expression study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.