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:摘要研究删失生存回归与序贯检验,时间演进本身不足以归入宏观时间序列。

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
Minggao Gu
Zhiliang Ying

删失回归数据的序贯分析

研究问题
对于响应可能右删失且个体错时进入的数据,如何构造随观察时间更新的回归检验,并评估其与重复对数秩检验的表现。
方法与思路
作者构造适用于加速失效时间模型的得分过程,借助计数过程与鞅理论获得高斯近似,再以协方差估计构造重复显著性检验。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称给出了协方差函数的一致估计,并以两组生存数据和模拟比较检验;相对效率随正态或极值误差分布而变化。
阅读关注点
应核对删失和错时进入的条件、序贯检验的错误率控制,以及高斯近似的适用范围和辅助协变量调整方法。
阅读边界
仅据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;具体检验边界、样本量及效率差异未说明,模拟结果不支持无条件的优越性判断。

原文摘要

Motivated by Buckley and James' modification of the least squares procedure for censored regression data, we derive a score process that incorporates the time evolution and handles staggered entry data in a natural way. By censored regression data we mean that the responses are subject to a possible right censorship. Such cases often arise from clinical trials and industrial life tests. The score process can be interpreted as a weighted comparison of (transformed) survival times. This is especially suitable for the accelerated failure time regression model. By expressing it in an appropriate form so that the counting process and its associate martingale theory can be applied, we show that the score process is approximated by a mean 0 multidimensional Gaussian process. A consistent estimator of its covariance matrix function is provided. Based on the covariance matrix estimator and the sequential test of Slud and Wei, a repeated significance test is then proposed. Usefulness of the procedure is illustrated with two well-known data sets: the beta-blocker heart attack trial data and the Stanford heart transplant data. Both data sets are also analyzed using the more familiar repeated log-rank test. Comparing results from the log-rank and the proposed tests shows that the two procedures tend to reach similar conclusions. Simulation studies are conducted to investigate the accuracy of the normal approximations when sample sizes are moderate and to compare efficiency with the commonly used log-rank statistic. The results indicate that the proposed test is superior when the underlying error distribution is normal, and the log-rank method is superior when the error distribution is extreme value. We also show how the proposed test can be modified to adjust for ancillary covariates.

笔记与分组