Data-driven smooth tests of the proportional hazards assumption

Lifetime Data Analysis

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-16

  Kraus, David ^a,b  

^a INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION THEORY AND AUTOMATION   (Czech Republic)

^b CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Cox model; Neyman's smooth test; Proportional hazards assumption; Schwarz's selection rule

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BIOMETRY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS;

EID: 33847256494     PISSN: 13807870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10985-006-9027-8     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Abrahamowicz M, MacKenzie T, Esdaile JM (1996) Time-dependent hazard ratio: modeling and hypothesis testing with application in lupus nephritis. J Am Stat Assoc 91:1432-1439
2. Andersen PK, Gill RD (1982) Cox's regression model for counting processes: a large sample study. Ann Stat 10:1100-1120
3. Andersen PK, Borgan Ø, Gill RD, Keiding N (1993) Statistical models based on counting processes. Springer, New York
4. Claeskens G, Hjort NL (2004) Goodness of fit via non-parametric likelihood ratios. Scand J Stat 31:487-513
5. Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life-tables. J Roy Stat Soc Ser B 34:187-220
6. Fleming TR, Harrington DP (1991) Counting processes and survival analysis. Wiley, New York
7. Inglot T, Ledwina T (2004) Refined version of data driven Neyman's test. Preprint 001, Institute of Mathematics, Wrocław University of Technology
8. Inglot T, Kallenberg WCM, Ledwina T (1997) Data driven smooth tests for composite hypotheses. Ann Stat 25:1222-1250
9. Janssen A (2003) Which power of goodness of fit tests can really be expected: intermediate versus contiguous alternatives. Stat Decisions 21:301-325
10. Kallenberg WCM, Ledwina T (1995) On data driven Neyman's tests. Prob Math Stat 15:409-426
11. Kallenberg WCM, Ledwina T (1997) Data-driven smooth tests when the hypothesis is composite. J Am Stat Assoc 92:1094-1104
12. Kraus D (2006) Identifying nonproportional covariates in the Cox model. Research Report 2170, Institute of Information Theory and Automation, Prague
13. Kvaløy JT, Neef LR (2004) Tests for the proportional intensity assumption based on the score process. Lifetime Data Anal 10:139-157
14. Ledwina T (1994) Data-driven version of Neyman's smooth test of fit. J Am Stat Assoc 89: 1000-1005
15. Lin DY, Wei LJ, Ying Z (1993) Checking the Cox model with cumulative sums of martingale-based residuals. Biometrika 80:557-572
16. Martinussen T, Scheike TH, Skovgaard IM (2002) Efficient estimation of fixed and time-varying covariate effects in multiplicative intensity models. Scand J Stat 29:57-74
17. Peña EA (1998a) Smooth goodness-of-fit tests for composite hypothesis in hazard based models. Ann Stat 26:1935-1971
18. Peña EA (1998b) Smooth goodness-of-fit tests for the baseline hazard in Cox's proportional hazards model. J Am Stat Assoc 93:673-692
19. Peña EA (2003) Classes of fixed-order and adaptive smooth goodness-of-fit tests with discrete right-censored data. In: Mathematical and statistical methods in reliability (Trondheim, 2002). World Sci Publishing, River Edge
20. Scheike TH, Martinussen T (2004) On estimation and tests of time-varying effects in the proportional hazards model. Scand J Stat 31:51-62
21. Woodroofe M (1978) Large deviations of likelihood ratio statistics with applications to sequential testing. Ann Stat 6:72-84