arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2211.00784

Comparison of Baseline Covariate Adjustment Methods for Restricted Mean Survival Time

Keisuke Hanada·Junji Moriya·Masahiro Kojima
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The restricted mean survival time is a clinically easy-to-interpret measure that does not require any assumption of proportional hazards. We focus on two ways to directly model the survival time and adjust the covariates. One is to calculate the pseudo-survival time for each subject using leave-one-out, and then perform a model analysis using all pseudo-values to adjust for covariates. The pseudo-survival time is used to reflect information of censored subjects in the model analysis. The other method adjusts for covariates using subjects for whom the time-to-event was observed while adjusting for the censored subjects using the inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW). This paper evaluates the performance of these two methods in terms of the power to detect group differences through a simple example dataset and computer simulations. The simple example illustrates the intuitive behavior of the two methods. With the method using pseudo-survival times, it is difficult to interpret the pseudo-values. We confirm that the pseudo-survival times are different from the actual data obtained in a primary biliary cholangitis clinical trial because of the many censored data. In the simulations, the method using IPCW is found to be more powerful. Even in the case of group differences with respect to the censor incidence rates and covariates, the method using IPCW maintains a nominal significance level for the type-1 error rate. We conclude that the IPCW method should be used to estimate the restricted mean survival time when adjusting the covariates.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Keisuke Hanada, Junji Moriya, Masahiro Kojima. 2022-11-01. Comparison of Baseline Covariate Adjustment Methods for Restricted Mean Survival Time. https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.00784

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗