Introduction to Frailty Models

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Objective: To test claims about inferences for two proportions, under specific conditions Chapter 22.
Advertisements

Lecture 11 (Chapter 9).
Hypothesis Testing Steps in Hypothesis Testing:
Review of the Basic Logic of NHST Significance tests are used to accept or reject the null hypothesis. This is done by studying the sampling distribution.
What is a χ2 (Chi-square) test used for?
April 25 Exam April 27 (bring calculator with exp) Cox-Regression
© 2010 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved The Complete Randomized Block Design.
Workshop frailty models Luc Duchateau, Rosemary Nguti and Paul Janssen.
Survival analysis1 Every achievement originates from the seed of determination.
Chapter 11 Survival Analysis Part 2. 2 Survival Analysis and Regression Combine lots of information Combine lots of information Look at several variables.
Workshop Semiparametric frailty models
Chapter 8 Introduction to Hypothesis Testing
Modeling clustered survival data The different approaches.
Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) Model As An Alternative to Cox Model
Definitions In statistics, a hypothesis is a claim or statement about a property of a population. A hypothesis test is a standard procedure for testing.
Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall Statistics for Business and Economics 8 th Edition Chapter 6 Sampling and Sampling.
Chapter 9 For Explaining Psychological Statistics, 4th ed. by B. Cohen 1 What is a Perfect Positive Linear Correlation? –It occurs when everyone has the.
Presentation 12 Chi-Square test.
Analysis of Variance. ANOVA Probably the most popular analysis in psychology Why? Ease of implementation Allows for analysis of several groups at once.
Psy B07 Chapter 1Slide 1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE. Psy B07 Chapter 1Slide 2 t-test refresher  In chapter 7 we talked about analyses that could be conducted.
Karri Silventoinen University of Helsinki Osaka University.
Essentials of survival analysis How to practice evidence based oncology European School of Oncology July 2004 Antwerp, Belgium Dr. Iztok Hozo Professor.
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). Outline Purpose and logic : page 3 Purpose and logic : page 3 Hypothesis testing : page 6 Hypothesis testing.
Design and Analysis of Clinical Study 11. Analysis of Cohort Study Dr. Tuan V. Nguyen Garvan Institute of Medical Research Sydney, Australia.
Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, 9 th edition. Gay, Mills, & Airasian © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Maximum Likelihood Estimator of Proportion Let {s 1,s 2,…,s n } be a set of independent outcomes from a Bernoulli experiment with unknown probability.
Time-dependent covariates and further remarks on likelihood construction Presenter Li,Yin Nov. 24.
Chapter 22: Comparing Two Proportions
1 Chapter 13 Analysis of Variance. 2 Chapter Outline  An introduction to experimental design and analysis of variance  Analysis of Variance and the.
Multinomial Experiments Goodness of Fit Tests We have just seen an example of comparing two proportions. For that analysis, we used the normal distribution.
Repeated Measurements Analysis. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Situations in which biologists would make repeated measurements on same individual.
Copyright © 2010, 2007, 2004 Pearson Education, Inc Chapter 12 Analysis of Variance 12.2 One-Way ANOVA.
Chapter 16 The Chi-Square Statistic
Lecture 13: Cox PHM Part II Basic Cox Model Parameter Estimation Hypothesis Testing.
HSRP 734: Advanced Statistical Methods July 17, 2008.
Lecture 19: Competing Risk Regression
Lecture 15: Time Varying Covariates Time-varying covariates.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Slide Beware: Lots of hidden slides!
Copyright © 2010, 2007, 2004 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 22 Comparing Two Proportions.
Chapter 11 Chi- Square Test for Homogeneity Target Goal: I can use a chi-square test to compare 3 or more proportions. I can use a chi-square test for.
BPS - 3rd Ed. Chapter 161 Inference about a Population Mean.
Test of Homogeneity Lecture 45 Section 14.4 Wed, Apr 19, 2006.
Warm up On slide.
Workshop 2 Frailty models. Contents Inference for shared gamma frailty models –Theoretical considerations –Fitting parametric and semiparametric models.
Lecture 12: Cox Proportional Hazards Model
Lecture 16: Regression Diagnostics I Proportional Hazards Assumption -graphical methods -regression methods.
Week111 The t distribution Suppose that a SRS of size n is drawn from a N(μ, σ) population. Then the one sample t statistic has a t distribution with n.
Multiple Regression I 1 Copyright © 2005 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc. Chapter 4 Multiple Regression Analysis (Part 1) Terry Dielman.
SEM Basics 2 Byrne Chapter 2 Kline pg 7-15, 50-51, ,
+ Chapter 11 Inference for Distributions of Categorical Data 11.1Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit Tests 11.2Inference for Relationships.
21- 1 Module 21:  2 For Contingency Tables This module presents the  2 test for contingency tables, which can be used for tests of association and for.
Biostatistics Case Studies 2014 Youngju Pak Biostatistician Session 5: Survival Analysis Fundamentals.
Chapter 15 The Chi-Square Statistic: Tests for Goodness of Fit and Independence PowerPoint Lecture Slides Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral.
We’ll now look at the relationship between a survival variable Y and an explanatory variable X; e.g., Y could be remission time in a leukemia study and.
IE241: Introduction to Design of Experiments. Last term we talked about testing the difference between two independent means. For means from a normal.
Lecture 3: Parametric Survival Modeling
Test of Homogeneity Lecture 45 Section 14.4 Tue, Apr 12, 2005.
Week 6 Dr. Jenne Meyer.  Article review  Rules of variance  Keep unaccounted variance small (you want to be able to explain why the variance occurs)
Section 8-6 Testing a Claim about a Standard Deviation or Variance.
1 Borgan and Henderson: Event History Methodology Lancaster, September 2006 Session 6.1: Recurrent event data Intensity processes and rate functions Robust.
Cross Tabs and Chi-Squared Testing for a Relationship Between Nominal/Ordinal Variables.
Chapter 11 Chi Square Distribution and Its applications.
Chapter 13 Section 2. Chi-Square Test 1.Null hypothesis – written in words 2.Alternative hypothesis – written in words – always “different” 3.Alpha level.
Chapter 11: Categorical Data n Chi-square goodness of fit test allows us to examine a single distribution of a categorical variable in a population. n.
Marshall University School of Medicine Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology BMS 617 Lecture 13: Multiple, Logistic and Proportional Hazards Regression.
Cross Tabulation with Chi Square
Comparing Cox Model with a Surviving Fraction with regular Cox model
business analytics II ▌assignment one - solutions autoparts 
Lecture 37 Section 14.4 Wed, Nov 29, 2006
Chapter 10 – Part II Analysis of Variance
Presentation transcript:

Introduction to Frailty Models STA635 Project by Benjamin Hall

Cox proportional hazards model Model: hyi (t) = h0(t)e1X1+...+ kXk is the hazard function of the ith individual Assumption: The hazard function for each individual is proportional to the basine hazard, h0(t). This assumption implies that the hazard function is fully determined by the covariate vector. Problem: There may be unobserved covariates that cause this assumption to be violated.

Simluation Ex: Unobserved covariate Consider a situation with the following population: Obviously Drug A is effective for the entire population. But what happens in the Cox Model if the group is unobservable? Group Proportion of Population Hazard Rate with placebo Hazard Rate with Drug A 1 40% .5 2 3 20% 10 8

Simulation Example, continued Let’s simulate this example and apply the Cox model: Have R simulate 100 people according to the previous table’s probabilities and randomly assign them to treatment or placebo For each person, have R simulate # of incidents within period of length 1. At the end of period of length 1 right-censoring occurs.

Simulation Example, continued Here is some of the data generated by R (see final slide for code): id group treat time status [1,] 1 3 .38 [2,] .07 [3,] .23 [4,] .15 [5,] .11 [6,] .89 [7,] 2 .22 [8,] .04 ...

Simulation Example, continued Now we run coxph on our data: > myfit1 Call: coxph(formula = Surv(time, status) ~ treat) coef exp(coef) se(coef) z p treat -0.128 0.88 0.11 -1.17 0.24 Likelihood ratio test=1.37 on 1 df, p=0.242 n= 445 Notice that the LRT has a p-value of .242 which is not significant. But we know that treatment is effective for everyone. What is happening?

Simulation Example, continued The problem is that we have heterogeneity in the data due to the unobservable groups. Since we cannot include group in our model, the assumption of proportional hazards is violated. What can we do to solve this problem? Use a frailty model.

Frailty Model Frailty models can help explain the unaccounted for heterogeneity. Frailty Model: hyi (t) = z  h0(t)e1X1+...+ kXk is the hazard function of the ith individual The distribution of z is specified to be, say, Gamma. (Note: z must be non-negative since the hazard is non-negative.) In this situation, the shared frailty model is appropriate, that is multiple observations of the same individual always has the same value of z.

Frailty Model in R Let’s apply the frailty model to our simulated data: > myfit2 Call: coxph(formula = Surv(time, status) ~ treat + frailty(id)) coef se(coef) se2 Chisq DF p treat -0.147 0.160 0.111 0.85 1.0 3.6e-01 frailty(id) 93.89 43.5 1.4e-05 Iterations: 5 outer, 17 Newton-Raphson Variance of random effect= 0.294 I-likelihood = -1887.9 Degrees of freedom for terms= 0.5 43.5 Likelihood ratio test=117 on 44.0 df, p=1.37e-08 n= 445 Notice that the LRT now has a highly significant p-value.

Frailty Model in R Now let’s try implementing the frailty model to a real data set, the kidnet data set. Here are the results for the regular Cox Model: > kfit1 Call: coxph(formula = Surv(time, status) ~ age + sex, data = kidney) coef exp(coef) se(coef) z p age 0.00203 1.002 0.00925 0.220 0.8300 sex -0.82931 0.436 0.29895 -2.774 0.0055 Likelihood ratio test=7.12 on 2 df, p=0.0285 n= 76 Here the LRT is significant with a p-value of .0285 even without considering frailty.

Frailty Model in R However, a frailty model seems applicable in this situation since their are multiple oberservations (i.e. 2 kidneys) per person. Below considers frailty: > kfit2 Call: coxph(formula = Surv(time, status) ~ age + sex + frailty(id), data = kidney) coef se(coef) se2 Chisq DF p age 0.00525 0.0119 0.0088 0.2 1 0.66000 sex -1.58749 0.4606 0.3520 11.9 1 0.00057 frailty(id) 23.1 13 0.04000 Iterations: 7 outer, 49 Newton-Raphson Variance of random effect= 0.412 I-likelihood = -181.6 Degrees of freedom for terms= 0.5 0.6 13.0 Likelihood ratio test=46.8 on 14.1 df, p=2.31e-05 n= 76 Now the LRT is even more significant.

Resources Therneau and Grambsch, Modeling Survival Data, Chapter 9 Wienke, Andreas, “Frailty Models”, http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2003-032.pdf Govindarajulu, “Frailty Models and Other Survival Models”, www.ms.uky.edu/~statinfo/nonparconf/govindarajulu.ppt

R Code library(survival) #GEN_TIME gen_time <- function(group, treat) { if (group == 1) { return (round(rexp(1, 1-(.5*treat)),2))} if (group == 2) { return (round(rexp(1, 2-treat),2))} if (group == 3) { return (round(rexp(1, 10-2*treat),2))}} # PERSON DATA person_data <- function() { treat <- rbinom(1,1,.5) x <- runif(1) t1 <- matrix(NA, nrow=1, ncol=25) if (x < .4) { group <- 1 } if (x > .4 & x < .8) { group <- 2} if (x > .8) { group <- 3} elapse <- 0 count <- 1 while (elapse < 1) { t1[(count+3)] <- gen_time(group, treat) elapse <- elapse + t1[(count+3)] count <- count + 1} count <- count - 1 t1[1] <- group t1[2] <- treat t1[3] <- count for (i in (count+4):25) { t1[i] <- 0 } if (count == 1) { t1[count+3] <- 1 } if (count > 1) { t1[count+3] <- 1-t1[count+2] } return (t1)} m1 <- matrix (NA, nrow=100, ncol=25) for (i in 1:100) { m1[i,] <- person_data() } samp_size <- sum(m1[,3]) samp <- matrix(NA, nrow = samp_size, ncol= 5) colnames(samp) <- c("id", "group", "treat", "time", "status") count2 <- 1 for (j in 1:m1[i,3]) { samp[count2, 1] <- i samp[count2, 2] <- m1[i,1] samp[count2, 3] <- m1[i,2] samp[count2, 4] <- m1[i,j+3] samp[count2, 5] <- 1 if(j==m1[i,3]) { samp[count2, 5] <- 0 } count2 <- count2 + 1}} myfit1 <- coxph(Surv(samp[,4], samp[,5]) ~ samp[,3]) myfit2 <- coxph(Surv(samp[,4], samp[,5]) ~ samp[,3] + frailty(samp[,1])) myfit1 myfit2