评估痴呆危险因素的病因特异性和竞争风险模型的比较

Q3 Mathematics Epidemiologic Methods Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1515/em-2019-0036
M. Waller, G. Mishra, A. Dobson
{"title":"评估痴呆危险因素的病因特异性和竞争风险模型的比较","authors":"M. Waller, G. Mishra, A. Dobson","doi":"10.1515/em-2019-0036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The study of dementia risk factors is complicated by the competing risk of dying. The standard approaches are the cause-specific Cox proportional hazard model with deaths treated as censoring events (and removed from the risk set) and the Fine and Gray sub-distribution hazard model in which those who die remain in the risk set. An alternative approach is to modify the risk set between these extremes. We propose a novel method of doing this based on estimating the time at which the person might have been diagnosed if they had not died using a parametric survival model, and then applying the cause-specific and Fine and Gray models to the modified dataset. We compare these methods using data on dementia from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health and discuss the assumptions and limitations of each model. The results from survival models to assess risk factors for dementia varied considerably between the cause-specific model and the models designed to account for competing risks. Therefore, when assessing risk factors in the presence of competing risks it is important to examine results from: the cause-specific model, different models which account for competing risks, and the model which assesses risk factors associated with the competing risk.","PeriodicalId":37999,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of cause-specific and competing risk models to assess risk factors for dementia\",\"authors\":\"M. Waller, G. Mishra, A. Dobson\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/em-2019-0036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The study of dementia risk factors is complicated by the competing risk of dying. The standard approaches are the cause-specific Cox proportional hazard model with deaths treated as censoring events (and removed from the risk set) and the Fine and Gray sub-distribution hazard model in which those who die remain in the risk set. An alternative approach is to modify the risk set between these extremes. We propose a novel method of doing this based on estimating the time at which the person might have been diagnosed if they had not died using a parametric survival model, and then applying the cause-specific and Fine and Gray models to the modified dataset. We compare these methods using data on dementia from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health and discuss the assumptions and limitations of each model. The results from survival models to assess risk factors for dementia varied considerably between the cause-specific model and the models designed to account for competing risks. Therefore, when assessing risk factors in the presence of competing risks it is important to examine results from: the cause-specific model, different models which account for competing risks, and the model which assesses risk factors associated with the competing risk.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37999,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epidemiologic Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epidemiologic Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/em-2019-0036\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Mathematics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/em-2019-0036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

死亡的竞争风险使痴呆危险因素的研究变得复杂。标准方法是病因特异性Cox比例风险模型,其中死亡被视为审查事件(并从风险集中删除),以及Fine和Gray子分布风险模型,其中死亡的人仍在风险集中。另一种方法是修改这两个极端之间的风险设置。我们提出了一种新的方法,该方法基于使用参数生存模型估计如果患者没有死亡,则患者可能被诊断的时间,然后将原因特定模型和Fine and Gray模型应用于修改后的数据集。我们使用澳大利亚妇女健康纵向研究的痴呆数据对这些方法进行比较,并讨论每个模型的假设和局限性。用于评估痴呆风险因素的生存模型的结果在病因特异性模型和用于考虑竞争风险的模型之间差异很大。因此,在评估存在竞争风险的风险因素时,重要的是要检查以下结果:特定原因模型,考虑竞争风险的不同模型,以及评估与竞争风险相关的风险因素的模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A comparison of cause-specific and competing risk models to assess risk factors for dementia
Abstract The study of dementia risk factors is complicated by the competing risk of dying. The standard approaches are the cause-specific Cox proportional hazard model with deaths treated as censoring events (and removed from the risk set) and the Fine and Gray sub-distribution hazard model in which those who die remain in the risk set. An alternative approach is to modify the risk set between these extremes. We propose a novel method of doing this based on estimating the time at which the person might have been diagnosed if they had not died using a parametric survival model, and then applying the cause-specific and Fine and Gray models to the modified dataset. We compare these methods using data on dementia from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health and discuss the assumptions and limitations of each model. The results from survival models to assess risk factors for dementia varied considerably between the cause-specific model and the models designed to account for competing risks. Therefore, when assessing risk factors in the presence of competing risks it is important to examine results from: the cause-specific model, different models which account for competing risks, and the model which assesses risk factors associated with the competing risk.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Epidemiologic Methods
Epidemiologic Methods Mathematics-Applied Mathematics
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Epidemiologic Methods (EM) seeks contributions comparable to those of the leading epidemiologic journals, but also invites papers that may be more technical or of greater length than what has traditionally been allowed by journals in epidemiology. Applications and examples with real data to illustrate methodology are strongly encouraged but not required. Topics. genetic epidemiology, infectious disease, pharmaco-epidemiology, ecologic studies, environmental exposures, screening, surveillance, social networks, comparative effectiveness, statistical modeling, causal inference, measurement error, study design, meta-analysis
期刊最新文献
Linked shrinkage to improve estimation of interaction effects in regression models. Bounds for selection bias using outcome probabilities Population dynamic study of two prey one predator system with disease in first prey using fuzzy impulsive control Development and application of an evidence-based directed acyclic graph to evaluate the associations between metal mixtures and cardiometabolic outcomes. Performance evaluation of ResNet model for classification of tomato plant disease
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1