Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
120 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Marginal Structural Illness-Death Models for Semi-Competing Risks Data (2204.10426v3)

Published 21 Apr 2022 in stat.ME and stat.AP

Abstract: The three state illness death model has been established as a general approach for regression analysis of semi competing risks data. For observational data the marginal structural models (MSM) are a useful tool, under the potential outcomes framework to define and estimate parameters with causal interpretations. In this paper we introduce a class of marginal structural illness death models for the analysis of observational semi competing risks data. We consider two specific such models, the Markov illness death MSM and the frailty based Markov illness death MSM. For interpretation purposes, risk contrasts under the MSMs are defined. Inference under the illness death MSM can be carried out using estimating equations with inverse probability weighting, while inference under the frailty based illness death MSM requires a weighted EM algorithm. We study the inference procedures under both MSMs using extensive simulations, and apply them to the analysis of mid life alcohol exposure on late life cognitive impairment as well as mortality using the Honolulu Asia Aging Study data set. The R codes developed in this work have been implemented in the R package semicmprskcoxmsm that is publicly available on CRAN.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (48)
  1. The honolulu-asia aging study: epidemiologic and neuropathologic research on cognitive impairment. Current Alzheimer Research 2012; 9(6):664–672.
  2. Neyman JS. On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. essay on principles. section 9.(translated and edited by dm dabrowska and tp speed, statistical science (1990), 5, 465-480). Annals of Agricultural Sciences 1923; 10:1–51.
  3. Rubin DB. Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2005; 100(469):322–331.
  4. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 2000; 11(5):550–560.
  5. Marginal structural models to estimate the joint causal effect of nonrandomized treatments. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2001; 96(454):440–448.
  6. Fix E, Neyman J. A simple stochastic model of recovery, relapse, death and loss of patients. Human Biology 1951; 23(3):205–241.
  7. On semi-competing risks data. Biometrika 2001; 88(4):907–919.
  8. Statistical analysis of illness–death processes and semicompeting risks data. Biometrics 2010; 66(3):716–725.
  9. Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The statistical analysis of failure time data. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
  10. Meira-Machado L, Sestelo M. Estimation in the progressive illness-death model: A nonexhaustive review. Biometrical Journal 2019; 61(2):245–263.
  11. Fitting a shared frailty illness-death model to left-truncated semi-competing risks data to examine the impact of education level on incident dementia. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2021; 21(1):1–13.
  12. Estimation and inference for semi-competing risks based on data from a nested case-control study. Statistical methods in medical research 2020; 29(11):3326–3339.
  13. Bayesian semiparametric analysis of semicompeting risks data: investigating hospital readmission after a pancreatic cancer diagnosis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 2015; 64(2):253–273.
  14. Semicomprisks: an R package for the analysis of independent and cluster-correlated semi-competing risks data. The R journal 2019; 11(1):376.
  15. Lauritzen SL, Richardson TS. Chain graph models and their causal interpretations. Journal of the royal statistical society: series B 2002; 64(3):321–348.
  16. Auto-G-computation of causal effects on a network. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2021; 116(534):833–844.
  17. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Causal Inference: What If. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2021.
  18. Non-and semi-parametric estimation of transition probabilities from censored observation of a non-homogeneous markov process. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 1991; :153–167.
  19. Lancaster T, Nickell S. The analysis of re-employment probabilities for the unemployed. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General) 1980; 143(2):141–152.
  20. A counting process approach to maximum likelihood estimation in frailty models. Scandinavian journal of Statistics 1992; 19(1):25–43.
  21. Vaida F, Xu R. Proportional hazards model with random effects. Statistics in medicine 2000; 19(24):3309–3324.
  22. Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychological methods 2004; 9(4):403.
  23. Zhang Y, Xu R. cmprskcoxmsm: Use IPW to Estimate Treatment Effect under Competing Risks, 2021. R package version 0.2.1.
  24. Gander W, Gautschi W. Adaptive quadrature—revisited. BIT Numerical Mathematics 2000; 40(1):84–101.
  25. Rice JR. A metalgorithm for adaptive quadrature. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 1975; 22(1):61–82.
  26. Wu CJ. On the convergence properties of the EM algorithm. The Annals of statistics 1983; :95–103.
  27. Lehmann EL, Casella G. Theory of point estimation. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006.
  28. Vaida F. Parameter convergence for EM and MM algorithms. Statistica Sinica 2005; :831–840.
  29. Breslow NE, Wellner JA. Weighted likelihood for semiparametric models and two-phase stratified samples, with application to Cox regression. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 2007; 34(1):86–102.
  30. Murphy SA, Van der Vaart AW. On profile likelihood. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2000; 95(450):449–465.
  31. Two-level proportional hazards models. Biometrics 2002; 58(4):754–763.
  32. Kosorok MR. Introduction to empirical processes and semiparametric inference. Springer, 2008.
  33. Havercroft W, Didelez V. Simulating from marginal structural models with time-dependent confounding. Statistics in medicine 2012; 31(30):4190–4206.
  34. Jiang F, Haneuse S. Simulation of semicompeting risk survival data and estimation based on multistate frailty model. Harvard University Biostatistics Working Paper Series 2015; .
  35. Using profile likelihood for semiparametric model selection with application to proportional hazards mixed models. Statistica Sinica 2009; 19(2):819.
  36. Zhang Y. Causal inference for competing risks and semi-competing risks data. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, San Diego, 2022.
  37. A quantitative study of the bias in estimating the treatment effect caused by omitting a balanced covariate in survival models. Statistics in Medicine 1988; 7(12):1243–1255.
  38. Doubly robust estimation under covariate-induced dependent left truncation. ArXiv: 2206.02296V2 2023; .
  39. Geskus RB. Data analysis with competing risks and intermediate states. CRC Press Boca Raton, 2016.
  40. The relative efficiency of time-to-threshold and rate of change in longitudinal data. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2011; 32(5):685–693.
  41. Evaluation of the natural history of disease by combining incident and prevalent cohorts: application to the Nun Study. Lifetime Data Analysis 2023; :https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985–023–09602–x.
  42. Event-specific win ratios for inference with terminal and non-terminal events. Statistics in Medicine 2022; 47(1):1225–1241.
  43. Huang YT. Causal mediation of semicompeting risks. Biometrics 2021; 77(4):1143–1154.
  44. A Bayesian nonparametric approach for evaluating the causal effect of treatment in randomized trials with semi-competing risks. Biostatistics 2022; 23(1):34–49.
  45. Survivor average causal effects for continuous time: a principal stratification approach to causal inference with semicompeting risks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09304 2019; .
  46. Nevo D, Gorfine M. Causal inference for semi-competing risks data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04485 2020; .
  47. Rava D. Survival Analysis and Causal Inference: from Marginal Structural Cox to Additive Hazards Model and beyond. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, San Diego, 2021.
  48. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Robins J. On parametrization, robustness and sensitivity analysis in a marginal structural cox proportional hazards model for point exposure. Statistics & Probability Letters 2012; 82(5):907–915.
Citations (2)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now