Implementation of an alternative method for assessing competing risks: restricted mean time lost
竞争风险评估的替代方法:限制平均损失时间AI 解读 ↓
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。
本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。
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。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究竞争风险下的生存结局比较与临床检验,未明确提供因果识别或其他所列计量细分方向的依据。
竞争风险评估的替代方法:限制平均损失时间AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
In clinical and epidemiological studies, hazard ratios are often applied to compare treatment effects between two groups for survival data. For competing risks data, the corresponding quantities of interest are cause-specific hazard ratios (cHRs) and subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs). However, they both have some limitations related to model assumptions and clinical interpretation. Therefore, we recommend restricted mean time lost (RMTL) as an alternative that is easy to interpret in a competing risks framework. Based on the difference in restricted mean time lost (RMTLd), we propose a new estimator, hypothetical test and sample size formula. The simulation results show that the estimation of the RMTLd is accurate and that the RMTLd test has robust statistical performance (both type I error and power). The results of three example analyses also verify the performance of the RMTLd test. From the perspectives of clinical interpretation, application conditions and statistical performance, we recommend that the RMTLd be reported with the HR in the analysis of competing risks data and that the RMTLd even be regarded as the primary outcome when the proportional hazard assumption fails. The R code (crRMTL) is publicly available from Github (https://github.com/chenzgz/crRMTL.1). Keywords: survival analysis, competing risks, hazard ratio, restricted mean time lost, sample size, hypothesis test