jerome@hivnet.ubc.ca
2003-May-07 00:37 UTC
[Rd] frailty models in survreg() -- survival package (PR#2933)
I am confused on how the log-likelihood is calculated in a parametric survival problem with frailty. I see a contradiction in the frailty() help file vs. the source code of frailty.gamma(), frailty.gaussian() and frailty.t(). The function frailty.gaussian() appears to calculate the penalty as the negative log-density of independent Gaussian variables, as one would expect:> frailty.gaussian[...] list([...], penalty = 0.5 * sum(coef^2/theta + log(2 * pi * theta)), flag = FALSE) [...] Similarly, the frailty.t() appears to use the joint negative log-density of Student t random variables. HOWEVER, frailty.gamma() uses:> frailty.gamma[...] list([...], penalty = -sum(coef) * nu, flag = FALSE) [...] I would rather expect to see something like: (1) penalty=sum(coef*nu-(nu-1)*log(coef)+lgamma(nu)-nu*log(nu)) which is the joint negative log-density of gamma variables. Alternately, I could also expect to see something like this: (2) penalty=sum(coef-exp(coef))*nu which was shown to lead to the same EM solution as penalty (1) -- at least in the case of a Cox proportional hazard model (Therneau and Grambsch, 2000. Modeling Survival Data, Extending the Cox Model. Springer, New York. Page 254, Eq. (9.8).). Bare we me, I don't know whether this holds in the case of a parametric model. I also have concerns about the validity of the likelihood ratio tests obtained with the latter penalty function (2), because this penalty is NOT equal to the negative log-likelihood (1). Finally, it's not clear to me whether we gain significant convergence speed and accuracy by using the penalty (2) as opposed to (1). Furthermore, the help file for frailty() says, "The penalised likelihood method is equivalent to maximum (partial) likelihood for the gamma frailty but not for the others." In the current state of the package, I would think that this should be the other way around. That is, "The penalised likelihood method is equivalent to maximum (partial) likelihood for the gaussian and t frailty but not for the gamma." However, my current comprehension of the problem leads me to recommend to use the negative log-likelihood of gamma variables (2). Hence, both gamma, Gaussian and t frailty would be equivalent to maximum (partial) likelihood. Any comment on this issue would be much appreciated. Sincerely, Jerome Asselin R 1.6.2 on Red Hat Linux 7.2 Package: survival Version: 2.9-7 -- Jerome Asselin (Jérôme), Statistical Analyst British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS St. Paul's Hospital, 608 - 1081 Burrard Street Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA V6Z 1Y6 Email: jerome@hivnet.ubc.ca Phone: 604 806-9112 Fax: 604 806-9044
Possibly Parallel Threads
- Re: frailty models in survreg() -- survival package (PR#2934)
- Re: frailty models in survreg() -- survival package (PR#2934)
- interval-censored data in survreg()
- segmentation fault: formula() with long variable names (PR#3680)
- covmat argument in princomp() (PR#3682)