Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
167 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 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

Proper Scoring Rules for Survival Analysis (2305.00621v3)

Published 1 May 2023 in stat.ME and cs.LG

Abstract: Survival analysis is the problem of estimating probability distributions for future event times, which can be seen as a problem in uncertainty quantification. Although there are fundamental theories on strictly proper scoring rules for uncertainty quantification, little is known about those for survival analysis. In this paper, we investigate extensions of four major strictly proper scoring rules for survival analysis and we prove that these extensions are proper under certain conditions, which arise from the discretization of the estimation of probability distributions. We also compare the estimation performances of these extended scoring rules by using real datasets, and the extensions of the logarithmic score and the Brier score performed the best.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (42)
  1. A time-dependent discrimination index for survival data. Statistics in Medicine, 24(24):3927–3944, 2005.
  2. Countdown regression: Sharp and calibrated survival predictions. In Proceedings of UAI 2019, pp.  145–155, 2019.
  3. Benedetti, R. Scoring rules for forecast verification. American Meteorological Society, 138(1):203–211, 2010.
  4. Pitfalls of epistemic uncertainty quantification through loss minimisation. In Proceedings of NeurIPS 2022, 2022.
  5. The c-index is not proper for the evaluation of t𝑡titalic_t-year predicted risks. Biostatistics, 20(2):347–357, 2018.
  6. Brier, G. W. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Review, 78(1):1–3, 1950.
  7. Calibration and uncertainty in neural time-to-event modeling. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 34(4):1666–1680, 2020.
  8. Cox, D. R. Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 34(2):187–220, 1972.
  9. Time to default in credit scoring using survival analysis: a benchmark study. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68(6):652–665, 2017.
  10. Use of nonclonal serum immunoglobulin free light chains to predict overall survival in the general population. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 87(6):517–523, 2012.
  11. Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(477):359–378, 2007.
  12. X-CAL: Explicit calibration for survival analysis. In Proceedings of NeurIPS 2020, pp.  18296–18307, 2020.
  13. Good, I. J. Rational decisions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 14(1):107–114, 1952.
  14. Assessment and comparison of prognostic classification schemes for survival data. Statistics in Medicine, 18(17–18):2529–2545, 1999.
  15. Effective ways to build and evaluate individual survival distributions. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(85):1–63, 2020.
  16. Inverse-weighted survival games. In Proceedings of NeurIPS 2021, pp.  2160–2172, 2021.
  17. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. Journal of the American Medical Association, 247(18):2543–2546, 1982.
  18. Estimating calibrated individualized survival curves with deep learning. In Proceedings of AAAI 2021, pp.  240–248, 2021.
  19. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53(282):457–481, 1958.
  20. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of ICLR 2015, 2015.
  21. The SUPPORT prognostic model. Objective estimates of survival for seriously ill hospitalized adults. Study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments. Annals of Internal Medicine, 122(3):191–203, 1995.
  22. Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1):33–50, 1978.
  23. Quantile regression. Journal of economic perspectives, 15(4):143–156, 2001.
  24. Time-to-event prediction with neural networks and Cox regression. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20(129):1–30, 2019.
  25. DeepHit: A deep learning approach to survival analysis with competing risks. In Proceedings of AAAI-18, pp.  2314–2321, 2018.
  26. Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(11):1202–1209, 2009.
  27. Philosophical Lectures on Probability: collected, edited, and annotated by Alberto Mura. Synthese Library. Springer Netherlands, 2008.
  28. Correction to censored regression quantiles by S. Portnoy, 98 (2003), 1001–1012. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101(474):860–861, 2006.
  29. Decision Theory: Principles and Approaches. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley, 2009.
  30. Censored quantile regression neural networks. In Proceedings of NeurIPS 2022, 2022.
  31. Peng, L. Quantile regression for survival data. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 8:413–437, 2021.
  32. Portnoy, S. Censored regression quantiles. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 98(464):1001–1012, 2003.
  33. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2016. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
  34. Deep recurrent survival analysis. In Proceedings of AAAI-19, pp.  4798–4805, 2019.
  35. Survival regression with proper scoring rules and monotonic neural networks. In Proceedings of AISTATS 2022, 2022.
  36. A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs. Experimental Economics, 18:457–490, 2015.
  37. Avoiding c-hacking when evaluating survival distribution predictions with discrimination measures. Bioinformatics, 38(17):4178–4184, 2022.
  38. A hierarchical approach to multi-event survival analysis. In Proceedings of AAAI 2021, pp.  591–599, 2021.
  39. On the C-statistics for evaluating overall adequacy of risk prediction procedures with censored survival data. Statistics in Medicine, 30(10):1105–1117, 2011.
  40. Machine learning for survival analysis: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(6):1–36, 2019.
  41. SAFE: A neural survival analysis model for fraud early detection. In Proceedings of AAAI-19, pp.  1278–1285, 2019.
  42. Deep extended hazard models for survival analysis. In Proceedings of NeurIPS 2021, 2021.
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