Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41758753›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2026

The Impact of Two Data-Generating Processes for Competing Risk Data on the Discrimination and Calibration of Two Types of Competing Risk Regression Models.

Peter C Austin, Hein Putter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Peter C AustinICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3337-233X
Hein PutterLeiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5395-1422

Funding

CIHR PJT 183898Ministry of Long-Term Care (MLTC)Ontario Ministry of Health (MOH)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monte Carlo simulations are an important tool in modern statistical research. The data-generating process is foundational to any simulation. In survival analysis, a competing risk is an event whose occurrence precludes the occurrence of the primary event of interest. Two data-generating processes have been described for simulating competing risk data: one based on all the cause-specific hazard functions for the different types of events, and one based on a subdistribution hazard model for the primary event of interest. There is a paucity of research on the impact of the choice of data-generating process. We used a series of Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the impact of the choice of data-generating process on the performance of prediction models when assessing discrimination using the time-dependent AUC and accuracy using the time-dependent Brier score. We also assessed the impact of the choice of competing risk regression used for computing smoothed event probabilities for use when computing the calibration metrics ICI (integrated calibration index), E50, and E90. The impact of discordance between the fitted model and the data-generating process on both the time-dependent AUC and the time-dependent Brier score was minimal. When computing the ICI, E50, and E90, we recommend that researchers use a model for computing smoothed event probabilities that is concordant with the type of model whose calibration is being assessed.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalArea Under CurveCalibrationComputer SimulationHumansMonte Carlo MethodProportional Hazards ModelsRegression AnalysisRisk AssessmentSurvival Analysiscompeting risksdata‐generating processmodel calibrationmodel discriminationMonte Carlo simulations

Identifiers

PMID41758753
PMCPMC12947980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.