ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019
A Multi-Center Competing Risks Model and Its Absolute Risk Calculation Approach.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the competing risks frame, the cause-specific hazard model (CSHM) can be used to test the effects of some covariates on one particular cause of failure. Sometimes, however, the observed covariates cannot explain the large proportion of variation in the time-to-event data coming from different areas such as in a multi-center clinical trial or a multi-center cohort study. In this study, a multi-center competing risks model (MCCRM) is proposed to deal with multi-center survival data, then this model is compared with the CSHM by simulation. A center parameter is set in the MCCRM to solve the spatial heterogeneity problem caused by the latent factors, hence eliminating the need to develop different models for each area. Additionally, the effects of the exposure factors in the MCCRM are kept consistent for each individual, regardless of the area they inhabit. Therefore, the coefficient of the MCCRM model can be easily explained using the scenario of each model for each area. Moreover, the calculating approach of the absolute risk is given. Based on a simulation study, we show that the estimate of coefficients of the MCCRM is unbiased and precise, and the area under the curve (AUC) is larger than that of the CSHM when the heterogeneity cannot be ignored. Furthermore, the disparity of the AUC increases progressively as the standard deviation of the center parameter (SDCP) rises. In order to test the calibration, the expected number (E) of strokes is calculated and then compared with the corresponding observed number (O). The result is promising, so the SDCP can be used to select the most appropriate model. When the SDCP is less than 0.1, the performance of the MCCRM and CSHM is analogous, but when the SDCP is equal to or greater than 0.1, the performance of the MCCRM is significantly superior to the CSHM. This suggests that the MCCRM should be selected as the appropriate model.
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.