Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41152743›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Two-stage sampling for better survival model performance.

Yunwei Zhang, Samuel Muller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Yunwei ZhangSchool of Mathematics, Statistics, Chemistry and Physics, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia. yunwei.zhang@murdoch.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-2173-3185
Samuel MullerSchool of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3087-8127

Funding

Australian Research Council DP230101908
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the emergence of high-dimensional censored survival data in health and medicine, the use of survival models for risk prediction is increasing. To date, practical techniques exist for splitting data for model training and performance evaluation. While different sampling methods have been compared for their performances, the effect of data splitting ratio and survival specific characteristics have not yet been examined for high dimensional censored survival data.

methodsWe first conduct an empirical study of using the simple random sampling technique and stratified sampling technique on real high-dimensional gene expression datasets Lasso Cox model performance. For the simple random sampling technique, various data splitting ratios are investigated. For the stratified sampling, different survival specific variables are investigated. We consider C-index and Brier Score as evaluation metrics. We further develop and validate a two-stage purposive sampling approach motivated by our empirical study findings.

resultsOur findings reveal that survival specific characteristics contribute to model performance across training, testing and validation data. The proposed two-stage purposive sampling approach performs well in mitigating excessive diversity within the training data for both simulation study and real data analysis, leading to better survival model performances.

conclusionsWe recommend careful consideration of key factors in different sampling techniques when developing and validating survival models. Using methods such as the proposed method to mitigate excessive diversity provides a solution.

Indexed as

Survival AnalysisAlgorithmsComputer SimulationHumansModels, StatisticalProportional Hazards ModelsSampling StudiesLasso Cox modelSimple random samplingStratified samplingSurvival analysisSurvival model performance

Identifiers

PMID41152743
PMCPMC12570514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.