arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2509.02634

Robust Survival Estimation under Interval Censoring: Expectation-Maximization and Bayesian Accelerated Failure Time Assessment via Simulation and Application

Abstract

Interval censoring occurs when event times are only known to fall between scheduled assessments, a common design in clinical trials, epidemiology, and reliability studies. Standard right-censoring methods, such as Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression, are not directly applicable and can produce biased results. This study compares three complementary approaches for interval-censored survival data. First, the Turnbull nonparametric maximum likelihood estimator (NPMLE) via the EM algorithm recovers the survival distribution without strong assumptions. Second, Weibull and log-normal accelerated failure time (AFT) models with interval likelihoods provide smooth, covariate-adjusted survival curves and interpretable time-ratio effects. Third, Bayesian AFT models extend these tools by quantifying posterior uncertainty, incorporating prior information, and enabling interval-aware model comparisons via PSIS-LOO cross-validation. Simulations across generating distributions, censoring intensities, sample sizes, and covariate structures evaluated the integrated squared error (ISE) for curve recovery, integrated Brier score (IBS) for prediction, and coverage for uncertainty calibration. Results show that the EM achieves the lowest ISE for distribution recovery, AFT models improve predictive performance when families are correctly specified, and Bayesian AFT offers calibrated uncertainty and principled model selection. An application to the ovarian cancer dataset, restructured into interval-censored form, demonstrates the workflow in practice: the EM algorithm reveals the baseline shape, parametric AFT provides covariate-adjusted predictions, and Bayesian AFT validates model adequacy through posterior predictive checks. Together, these methods form a tiered strategy: EM for shape discovery, AFT for covariate-driven prediction, and Bayesian AFT for complete uncertainty quantification and model comparison.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J. T. Korley. 2025-09-01. Robust Survival Estimation under Interval Censoring: Expectation-Maximization and Bayesian Accelerated Failure Time Assessment via Simulation and Application. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.02634

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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