Importance of Considering Competing Risks in Time-to-Event Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ignoring competing risks in time-to-event analyses can lead to biased risk estimates, particularly for elderly patients with multimorbidity. We aimed to demonstrate the impact of considering competing risks when estimating the cumulative incidence and risk of stroke among elderly atrial fibrillation patients. Methods and Results: Using linked administrative databases, we identified patients with atrial fibrillation aged ≥66 years discharged from hospital in ON, Canada between January 1, 2007, and March 31, 2011. We estimated the cumulative incidence of stroke hospitalization using the complement of the Kaplan–Meier function and the cumulative incidence function. This was repeated after stratifying the cohort by presence of prespecified comorbidities: chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, or dementia. The full cohort was used to regress components of the CHA 2 DS 2 VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes mellitus, stroke, vascular disease, sex) score on the hazard of stroke hospitalization using the Fine-Gray and Cox methods. These models were subsequently used to predict the 5-year risk of stroke hospitalization. Among 136 156 patients, the median CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score was 4 and 84 728 patients (62.2%) had ≥1 prespecified comorbidity. The 5-year cumulative incidence of stroke was 5.4% (95% confidence interval, 5.3%–5.5%), whereas that of death without stroke was 48.8% (95% confidence interval, 48.5%–49.1%). The incidence of both events was overestimated by the Kaplan–Meier method; stroke incidence was overestimated by a relative factor of 39%. The degree of overestimation was larger among patients with non-CHA 2 DS 2 VASc comorbidity because of higher incidence of death without stroke. The Fine-Gray model demonstrated better calibration than the Cox model, which consistently overpredicted stroke incidence. Conclusions: The incidence of death without stroke was 9-fold higher than that of stroke, leading to biased estimates of stroke risk with traditional time-to-event methods. Statistical methods that appropriately account for competing risks should be used to mitigate this bias.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.376 | 0.571 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".