跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要讨论一般生存分析中的危险率函数比较,未提供金融尾部风险、因果效应或其他所列方向的直接证据。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Peihua Qiu
Jun Sheng

比较危险率函数的两阶段检验程序

研究问题
比较两个事件发生时间的危险率时,如何同时覆盖危险率交叉、平行等备择情形,并正确控制检验水平?
方法与思路
作者将对数秩检验与新构造的交叉危险率检验组合为两阶段程序,利用两统计量的渐近独立性定义水平和 p 值。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称该程序考虑包括交叉和平行在内的各类备择,并称两阶段组合在危险率比较应用中表现良好。
阅读关注点
阅读全文时应核对删失与抽样条件、两阶段决策规则、渐近独立性证明,以及不同备择下的大小和功效。
阅读边界
仅据所给 Crossref 摘要;适用条件和性能数值未说明,考虑各类备择不等于已证明对所有危险率形态均有高功效。

原文摘要

Summary Comparison of two hazard rates is important in applications that are related to times to occurrence of a specific event. Conventional comparison procedures, such as the log-rank, Gehan–Wilcoxon and Peto–Peto tests, are powerful only when the two hazard rates do not cross each other. Because crossing hazard rates are common in practice, several procedures have been proposed in the literature for comparing such rates. However, most of these procedures consider only the alternative hypothesis with crossing hazard rates; many other realistic cases, including those when the two hazard rates run parallel to each other, are excluded from consideration. We propose a two-stage procedure that considers all possible alternatives, including ones with crossing or running parallel hazard rates. To define its significance level and p-value properly, a new procedure for handling the crossing hazard rates problem is suggested, which has the property that its test statistic is asymptotically independent of the test statistic of the log-rank test. We show that the two-stage procedure, with the log-rank test and the suggested procedure for handling the crossing hazard rates problem used in its two stages, performs well in applications in comparing two hazard rates.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文