ArticleLifetime data analysis2019
Nonparametric change point estimation for survival distributions with a partially constant hazard rate.
Article in Lifetime data analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We present a new method for estimating a change point in the hazard function of a survival distribution assuming a constant hazard rate after the change point and a decreasing hazard rate before the change point. Our method is based on fitting a stump regression to p values for testing hazard rates in small time intervals. We present three real data examples describing survival patterns of severely ill patients, whose excess mortality rates are known to persist far beyond hospital discharge. For designing survival studies in these patients and for the definition of hospital performance metrics (e.g. mortality), it is essential to define adequate and objective end points. The reliable estimation of a change point will help researchers to identify such end points. By precisely knowing this change point, clinicians can distinguish between the acute phase with high hazard (time elapsed after admission and before the change point was reached), and the chronic phase (time elapsed after the change point) in which hazard is fairly constant. We show in an extensive simulation study that maximum likelihood estimation is not robust in this setting, and we evaluate our new estimation strategy including bootstrap confidence intervals and finite sample bias correction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29623541What 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.