Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34234154›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

A comparison of time to event analysis methods, using weight status and breast cancer as a case study.

Georgios Aivaliotis, Jan Palczewski, Rebecca Atkinson, Janet E Cade, Michelle A Morris

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Georgios Aivaliotis *School of Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Jan Palczewski *School of Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Rebecca Atkinson *Leeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Janet E Cade *Nutritional Epidemiology Group, School of Food Sciences and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Michelle A Morris *Leeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. M.Morris@leeds.ac.uk.
University of Leeds · GBBritish Library · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L01629X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Survival analysis with cohort study data has been traditionally performed using Cox proportional hazards models. Random survival forests (RSFs), a machine learning method, now present an alternative method. Using the UK Women's Cohort Study (n = 34,493) we evaluate two methods: a Cox model and an RSF, to investigate the association between Body Mass Index and time to breast cancer incidence. Robustness of the models were assessed by cross validation and bootstraping. Histograms of bootstrap coefficients are reported. C-Indices and Integrated Brier Scores are reported for all models. In post-menopausal women, the Cox model Hazard Ratios (HR) for Overweight (OW) and Obese (O) were 1.25 (1.04, 1.51) and 1.28 (0.98, 1.68) respectively and the RSF Odds Ratios (OR) with partial dependence on menopause for OW and O were 1.34 (1.31, 1.70) and 1.45 (1.42, 1.48). HR are non-significant results. Only the RSF appears confident about the effect of weight status on time to event. Bootstrapping demonstrated Cox model coefficients can vary significantly, weakening interpretation potential. An RSF was used to produce partial dependence plots (PDPs) showing OW and O weight status increase the probability of breast cancer incidence in post-menopausal women. All models have relatively low C-Index and high Integrated Brier Score. The RSF overfits the data. In our study, RSF can identify complex non-proportional hazard type patterns in the data, and allow more complicated relationships to be investigated using PDPs, but it overfits limiting extrapolation of results to new instances. Moreover, it is less easily interpreted than Cox models. The value of survival analysis remains paramount and therefore machine learning techniques like RSF should be considered as another method for analysis.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalSurvival AnalysisAlgorithmsBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansOdds RatioProportional Hazards Models

Identifiers

PMID34234154
PMCPMC8263588
OpenAlexW3180156573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.