similar to: Any examples of a frailty model actually used for prediction ?

Dear R users, I'm trying to fit a gamma-frailty model on a simulated dataset, with 6 covariates, and I'm running into some results I do not understand. I constructed an example from my simulation code, where I fit a coxph model without frailty (M1) and with frailty (M2) on a number of data samples with a varying degree of heterogeneity (I'm running R 2.3.1, running takes ~1 min).

Hi, I am new in R and stumbled on a problem my (more experienced) friends can not help with with. Why isnt this code working? The function is working, also with the loop and the graph appears, only when I build another loop around it (for different values of p) , R stays in a loop? Can't it take more then 2 loops in one program? powerb<-function(x,sp2,a,b,b1,m) {

Hello, I was hoping that someone could answer a few questions for me (the background is given below): 1) Can the coxph accept an interaction between a covariate and a frailty term 2) If so, is it possible to a) test the model in which the covariate and the frailty appear as main terms using the penalized likelihood (for gaussian/t frailties) b)augment model 1) by stratifying on the variable that

Dear R-list users, I am trying to do simulation of survival data to enable it to run under frailty option. Below is the function a that I am using. My questions are: 1. How do I modify it to get bigger (hopefully significant) value of Variance of random effect? 2. What changes do I have to make in the function to run it under correlated frailty model? (may be in kinship package) 3. Is there

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: >

Dear List, In documents (Therneau, 2003 : On mixed-effect cox models, ...), as far as I came to know, coxme penalize the partial likelihood (Ripatti, Palmgren, 2000) where as frailtyPenal (in frailtypack package) uses the penalized the full likelihood approach (Rondeau et al, 2003). How, then, coxme and coxph(...frailty(id, dist='gauss')) differs? Just the coding algorithm, or in

On Tue, 6 May 2003, Jerome Asselin wrote: > > 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

I am trying to build a model to aid a clinical decision. Certain patients have a blood marker measured at each visit - a rise of this may indicate recurrence of the cancer after treatment (endpoint is "clinical recurrence", censored). In a proportion (up to 30%), this rise is a false positive - hence I wish to correlate factors at the time of the rising test to clinical recurrence,

Hi! I want to estimate a shared gamma frailty model with left truncated data. I use a parametric baseline hazard so that I can use simple ML estimation. As I have a big data set it is ok to assume piecewise constant baseline hazards. As my data are left truncated I have modified the definition of the risk set. Do I also have to modifiy the frailty distribution if I have left truncated data?

Dear R users: I'm generating the following survival data: set.seed(123) n=200 #sample size x=rbinom(n,size=1,prob=.5) #binomial treatment v=rgamma(n,shape=1,scale=1) #gamma frailty w=rweibull(n,shape=1,scale=1) #Weibull deviates b=-log(2) #treatment's slope t=exp( -x*b -log(v) + log(w) ) #failure times c=rep(1,n) #uncensored indicator id=seq(1:n) #individual frailty indicator

Hi R-users I spend a lot of time searching on the web but I didn?t found a clear answer. I have some doubts with 'frailty' function of 'survival' package. The following model with the function R ?coxph? was fitted: modx <- coxph(Surv(to_stroke, stroke) ~ age + sbp + dbp + sex + frailty(center,distribution = "gamma", method='aic'), data=datax) Then I get

Dear all, Does the frailty.object$history[[1]]$theta returns the Variance of random effect? Why is the value different? Here is an example with kidney data: > library(survival) > data(kidney) > frailty.object<-coxph(Surv(time, status)~ age + sex + disease + frailty(id), kidney) > frailty.object Call: coxph(formula = Surv(time, status) ~ age + sex + disease + frailty(id), data

Dear list, I want o fit a shared gamma frailty model with the frailty specification in the survival package. I have partly left-truncated data and time-dependent covariates. Is it possible to combine these two things in the frailty function. Or are the results wrong if I use data in the start-stop-formulation which account for delayed entry? Is the frailty distribution updated in the

Hi: I have a few clarification questions about the elements returned by the coxph function used in conjuction with a frailty term. I create the following group variable: group <- NULL group[id<50] <- 1 group[id>=50 & id<100] <- 2 group[id>=100 & id<150] <- 3 group[id>=150 & id<200] <- 4 group[id>=200 & id<250] <- 5 group[id>=250

Dear List, Can anyone please explain the difference between cluster() and frailty() in a coxph? I am a bit puzzled about it. Would appreciate any useful reference or direction. cheers, Ehsan > marginal.model <- coxph(Surv(time, status) ~ rx + cluster(litter), rats) > frailty.model <- coxph(Surv(time, status) ~ rx + frailty(litter), rats) > marginal.model Call: coxph(formula =

Dear all, This probably stems from my lack of understanding of the model, but I do not understand the variance of the random effect reported in coxme. Consider the following toy example: #------------------------------- BEGINNING OF CODE ------------------------------------------------ library(survival) library(coxme) #--- Generate toy data: d <- data.frame(id = c(1:100), #

Does someone know the rules by which 'coxph' returns 'frail', the predicted frailty terms? In my test function: ----------------------------------------------- fr <- function(){ #testing(frailty terms in 'survival' require(survival) dat <- data.frame(exit = 1:6, event = rep(1, 6), x = rep(c(0, 1), 3),

Hi: I have a question about the use of the survfit function after the estimation of a cox proportional hazard model with a frailty term. My goal is to estimate expected survival probabilities while controlling for the group-specific frailty term. First, I estimate a model of the following form: model1 <- coxph(Surv(t0, t, d) ~ x1 + x2 + frailty(id), na.action=na.exclude,

Dear R-users, I have noticed small discrepencies in the reported estimate of the variance of the frailty by the print method for survreg() and the 'theta' component included in the object fit: # Examples in R-2.6.2 for Windows library(survival) # version 2.34-1 (2008-03-31) # discrepancy fit1 <- survreg(Surv(time, status) ~ rx + frailty(litter), rats) fit1 fit1$history[[1]]$theta

A couple of clarifications for you. 1. I write mixed effects Cox models as exp(X beta + Z b), beta = fixed effects coefficients and b = random effects coefficients. I'm using notation that is common in linear mixed effects models (on purpose). About 2/3 of the papers use exp(X beta)* c, i.e., pull the random effects out of the exponent. Does it make a difference? Not much: b will be