ArticleStatistics in medicine2019
Prioritized concordance index for hierarchical survival outcomes.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Regularized win ratio regression for variable selection and risk prediction, with an application to a cardiovascular trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Development and pan-cancer validation of an epigenetics-based random survival forest model for prognosis prediction and drug response in OS.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Construction and validation of a prognostic signature based on seven endoplasmic reticulum stress-related lncRNAs for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Survival stratification for colorectal cancer via multi-omics integration using an autoencoder-based model.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2022Article
- The inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting (IPCW) adjusted win ratio statistic: an unbiased estimator in the presence of independent censoring.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We propose an extension of Harrell's concordance (C) index to evaluate the prognostic utility of biomarkers for diseases with multiple measurable outcomes that can be prioritized. Our prioritized concordance index measures the probability that, given a random subject pair, the subject with the worst disease status as of a time τ has the higher predicted risk. Our prioritized concordance index uses the same approach as the win ratio, by basing generalized pairwise comparisons on the most severe or clinically important comparable outcome. We use an inverse probability weighting technique to correct for study-specific censoring. Asymptotic properties are derived using U-statistic properties. We apply the prioritized concordance index to two types of disease processes with a rare primary outcome and a more common secondary outcome. Our simulation studies show that when a predictor is predictive of both outcomes, the new concordance index can gain efficiency and power in identifying true prognostic variables compared to using the primary outcome alone. Using the prioritized concordance index, we examine whether novel clinical measures can be useful in predicting risk of type II diabetes in patients with impaired glucose resistance whose disease status can also regress to normal glucose resistance. We also examine the discrimination ability of four published risk models among ever smokers at risk of lung cancer incidence and subsequent death.
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.