Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41372288›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Modeling unobserved heterogeneity in multistate event history data using frailty and weighted survival approaches.

Abhipsa Tripathy, Gajendra K Vishwakarma, Atanu Bhattacharjee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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

3 authors.

Abhipsa Tripathy *Department of Mathematics and Computing, IIT(ISM) Dhanbad, 826004, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India.
Gajendra K Vishwakarma *Department of Mathematics and Computing, IIT(ISM) Dhanbad, 826004, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India.
Atanu BhattacharjeePopulation Health and Genomics, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK. abhattacharjee001@dundee.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional survival analysis models typically assume that the hazard function depends solely on the baseline hazard and covariate values, overlooking unobserved factors that influence survival outcomes. In practice, however, unmeasured variables often contribute to heterogeneity among seemingly similar individuals. Frailty models offer an effective approach to account for such unobserved heterogeneity, providing a robust framework for analyzing naturally clustered survival data. This study applies frailty models to multistate event history data, emphasizing their ability to handle unobserved heterogeneity. We introduce individual-specific survival weights to adjust survival times, better reflecting the impact of unmeasured factors. These weighted survival times are critical when data exhibit bias or when standard models fail to fully capture the influence of investigated variables. Through a simulation study, we evaluate the effectiveness and performance of frailty models in a multistate framework, comparing mean, mean squared error (MSE), and bias of regression coefficients with and without frailty. For example, in the simulated dataset for age bias has reduced from -0.01 in unweighted survival time to -0.03 in weighted survival time for transition [Formula: see text], similarly for [Formula: see text] bias has reduced from 0.01 to -0.05. Our findings underscore the importance of addressing unobserved heterogeneity in survival analysis, particularly in multistate models with weighted survival times.

Indexed as

CensoringFrailty effectHeterogeneityMultistate modelProportional hazard model

Identifiers

PMID41372288
PMCPMC12780137

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.