Randomization inference for treatment effects on survival outcomes
生存结局治疗效应的随机化推断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:摘要直接研究随机试验治疗效应的随机化检验与置信区间。
生存结局治疗效应的随机化推断AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
The log-rank test and Kaplan--Meier plot are standard tools for analyzing time-to-event data in randomized clinical trials, yet neither provides a summary of the magnitude of the treatment effect. Practitioners typically fill this gap by reporting a hazard ratio from a Cox proportional-hazards model or an acceleration factor from an accelerated failure time (AFT) model, but both require assumptions beyond those needed for the log-rank test or Kaplan--Meier estimator. We propose two nonparametric confidence intervals for scalar effect-size summaries, an additive shift c and a multiplicative factor $ρ$, obtained by inverting the log-rank test under sharp null hypotheses of constant treatment effects. Building on the randomization-inference framework of Li and Small (2023), both intervals are valid under the randomization distribution alone, requiring no assumptions for the event-time distribution. We evaluate the proposed multiplicative interval via simulation, finding that it maintains nominal coverage across a range of censoring rates and sample sizes, including under data-generating processes that misspecify a parametric AFT model, while incurring only a modest efficiency loss compared to parametric AFT inference under correct specification. We illustrate the approach using data from a randomized trial of rhDNase for cystic fibrosis and provide R code and a Shiny application for ease of implementation.