Competing event regression on the relative subdistribution and cumulative-incidence scales
Mell, L. K.
Show abstract
In competing risks settings, covariate effects and group comparisons are usually assessed one event at a time - through log-rank or Cox tests on the cause-specific hazards, or Gray's test or Fine-Gray regression on a cumulative incidence function (CIF). This can obscure a clinically important quantity: the ratio between the event of interest and the competing event, since groups may differ little on the individual events yet differ sharply in their ratio. The generalized competing event (GCE) framework makes this ratio the object of inference; on the cause-specific scale the hazard ratio omega+(t) = lambda_1(t)/lambda_2(t) is estimated efficiently from a single stacked (Lunn-McNeil) model. We extend the framework to two scales that describe realized incidence. The subdistribution hazard ratio omega-tilde+(t) = lambda-tilde_1(t)/lambda-tilde_2(t) is estimated by a stacked, risk-set-weighted extension of the Lunn-McNeil construction; the cumulative-incidence ratio rho(t) = F_1(t)/F_2(t) - the odds that a subject's realized event by time t is the event of interest - by jackknife pseudo-observation regression of the Aalen-Johansen estimator. We relate the three contrasts: rho equals omega+ exactly under proportional cause-specific hazards, and equals omega-tilde+ only in the small-time limit under proportional subdistribution hazards, drifting toward 1 thereafter. The orthogonality that makes omega+ efficient is lost on both cumulative-incidence scales - omega tilde+ through overlapping weighted risk sets and shared censoring weights, rho through the shared all-cause survivor - so each carries a covariance term that must be handled and that bounds efficiency relative to the hazard-scale test. We derive the corresponding variances, study operating characteristics by simulation, illustrate on hypothetical prostate and head-and-neck cohorts, and provide an implementation in the gcemod R package.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Double Machine Learning Approach for the Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness under the Test-Negative Design: Analysis of Québec Administrative Data 94%
- Assessing Covariate Balance with Small Sample Sizes 94%
- Sensitivity to missing not at random dropout in clinical trials: use and interpretation of the Trimmed Means Estimator 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Pathway-specific population attributable fractions 94%
- A Comprehensive Evaluation of Methods for Mendelian Randomization Using Realistic Simulations and an Analysis of 38 Biomarkers for Risk of Type-2 Diabetes 92%
- Estimation of time-varying causal effects with multivariable Mendelian randomization: some cautionary notes 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Estimating the Effects of Treatment Regimes over the Course of Chronic Disease: A Multi-state Causal Framework with Baseline Confounding 91%
- Causal Mediation Analysis with Multiple Causally Ordered and Non-ordered Mediators based on Summarized Genetic Data 91%
- Adjusting for time of infection or positive test when estimating the risk of a post-infection outcome in an epidemic 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.