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:摘要聚焦生存回归与序贯检验,时间演进指随访过程,未明确涉及所列宏观时间序列方向。

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
研究右删失且受试者分批进入的数据,如何随观察时间积累开展回归序贯检验,并与常用重复对数秩检验比较。
方法与思路
作者受Buckley–James方法启发构造得分过程,利用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
摘要称方法适用于加速失效时间模型,并可调整协变量;模拟中正态误差有利于新检验,极值误差则有利于对数秩方法。
阅读关注点
应核对删失和分批入组假设、得分过程的时间指标、协方差估计一致性,以及序贯边界和模拟中的效率比较标准。
阅读边界
材料为OpenAlex索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;完整删失条件与检验边界未提供,分布特定的模拟比较不代表普遍优势,刊本变化未知。

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
相关领域论文