similar to: Extreme Value model

In one particular situation predict.coxph gives an error message. Namely: stratified data, predict='expected', new data, se=TRUE. I think I found the error but I'll leave that to you to decide. Thanks, Chris ######## CODE library(survival) set.seed(20121221) nn <- 10 # sample size in each group lambda0 <- 0.1 # event rate in group 0 lambda1 <- 0.2 # event rate in group 1

First, as others have said please obey the mailing list rules and turn of First, as others have said please obey the mailing list rules and turn off html, not everyone uses an html email client. Here is your code, formatted and with line numbers added. I also fixed one error: "y" should be "status". 1. fit0 <- coxph(Surv(futime, status) ~ x1 + x2 + x3, data = data0) 2. p

Since I read the list in digest form (and was out ill yesterday) I'm late to the discussion. There are 3 steps for predicting survival, using a Cox model: 1. Fit the data fit <- coxph(Surv(time, status) ~ age + ph.ecog, data=lung) The biggest question to answer here is what covariates you wish to base the prediction on. There is the usual tradeoff between too few (leave out something

Dear R-user: I am using survreg(Surv()) for fitting a Tobit model of left-censored longitudinal data. For logarithmic transformation of y data, I am trying use survreg.distributions in the following way: tfit=survreg(Surv(y, y>=-5, type="left")~x + cluster(id), dist="gaussian", data=y.data, scale=0, weights=w) my.gaussian<-survreg.distributions$gaussian

Calum had a long question about drawing survival curves after fitting a Weibull model, using pweibull, which I have not reproduced. It is easier to get survival curves using the predict function. Here is a simple example: > library(survival) > tfit <- survreg(Surv(time, status) ~ factor(ph.ecog), data=lung) > table(lung$ph.ecog) 0 1 2 3 <NA> 63 113 50 1

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: How to obtain nonparametric baseline hazard estimates in the gamma frailty model? Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:27:04 -0600 From: Terry Therneau <therneau.terry at mayo.edu> To: Y <yuhanusa at gmail.com> The cumulative hazard is just -log(sfit$surv). The hazard is essentially a density estimate, and that is much harder. You'll notice

When I run R CMD check on the survival package I invariably get a note: ... * checking for file ?survival/DESCRIPTION? ... OK * this is package ?survival? version ?3.2-6? * checking CRAN incoming feasibility ... NOTE Maintainer: ?Terry M Therneau <therneau.terry at mayo.edu>? ... This is sufficient for the auto-check process to return the following failure message: Dear maintainer,

Hello, I'm quite new to R and want to make a Weibull-regression with the survival package. I know how to build my "Surv"-object and how to make a standard-weibull regression with "survreg". However, I want to fit a translated or 3-parametric weibull dist to account for a failure-free time. I think I would need a new object in survreg.distributions, but I don't know how

Dear Terry, It's not surprising that different modeling functions behave differently in this respect because there's no articulated standard. Please see my response to Martin for my take on the singular.ok argument. For a highly sophisticated user like you, singular.ok=TRUE isn't problematic -- you're not going to fail to notice an NA in the coefficient vector -- but I've

I'm testing out some changes to survreg and got the following output, the likes of which I've never seen before: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- R version 2.7.1 (2008-06-23) Copyright (C) 2008 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing ISBN 3-900051-07-0 R is free software and comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. You are welcome to redistribute it

Thanks for sharing the questions and responses! Is it possible to appreciate how much the coefficients matter in one or the other model? Say, using Biau's example, using coxph, as.factor(grade2 == "high")TRUE gives hazard ratio 1.27 (rounded). As clinician I can grasp this HR as 27% relative increase. I can relate with other published results. With survreg the Weibull model gives a

Hello, I have interval censored data, censored between (0, 100). I used the tobit function in the AER package which in turn backs on survreg. Actually I'm struggling with the distribution. Data is asymmetrically distributed, so first choice would be a Weibull distribution. Unfortunately the Weibull doesn't allow for zero values in time data, as it requires x > 0. So I tried the

> I was wondering why survreg (in survival package) can not handle > three-way interactions. I have an AFT ..... You have given us no data to diagnose your problem. What do you mean by "cannot handle" -- does the package print a message "no 3 way interactions", gives wrong answers, your laptop catches on fire when you run it, ....? Also, make sure you read

I tried to compare if cch() and coxph() can generate same result for same case cohort data Use the standard data in cch(): nwtco Since in cch contains the cohort size=4028, while ccoh.data size =1154 after selection, but coxph does not contain info of cohort size=4028. The rough estimate between coxph() and cch() is same, but the lower and upper CI and P-value are a little different. Can we

Can anybody give me a neat example of interval censored data analysis codes in R? Given that suvreg(Surv(c(1,1,NA,3),c(2,NA,2,3),type="interval2")~1) works why does survreg(Surv(data[,1],data[,2],type="interval2")~1) not work where data is : T.1 T.2 Status 1 0.0000000 0.62873036 1 2 0.0000000 2.07039068 1 3 0.0000000

Dear all, I'm struggling with predicting "expected time until death" for a coxph and survreg model. I have two datasets. Dataset 1 includes a certain number of people for which I know a vector of covariates (age, gender, etc.) and their event times (i.e., I know whether they have died and when if death occurred prior to the end of the observation period). Dataset 2 includes another

Thank you Terry. Right now I can use comp() from survMisc package to do the 2-parameter version of F-H weighting. I think both SAS and stata offer the 2-parameter version, so just?thought it would be nice if survdiff() can have that option given it's standard package in R.? Thanks! John On Friday, February 16, 2018, 7:08:46 AM PST, Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. <therneau at mayo.edu>

-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Terry Therneau <therneau at mayo.edu> Subject: Re: Interval censored Data in survreg() with zero values! Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:46:37 -0600 (CST) Size: 4268 URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20090102/abe75d02/attachment-0002.eml>

1. The weibull is the only distribution that can be written in both a proportional hazazrds for and an accelerated failure time form. Survreg uses the latter. In an ACF model, we model the time to failure. Positive coefficients are good (longer time to death). In a PH model, we model the death rate. Positive coefficients are bad (higher death rate). You are not the first to be confused

The latest version of the survival package has two important additions. In prior code the call coxph(Surv(time, status) ~ age + strata(inst), data=lung) could fail if a version of either Surv() or strata() existed elsewhere on the search path; the wrong function could be picked up. Second, a model with survival::strata(inst) in the formula would not do what users expect. These