similar to: Weights in survReg

Dear R-list I have been trying to make survreg fit a normal regression model with left truncated data, but unfortunately I am not able to figure out how to do it. The following survreg-call seems to work just fine when the observations are right censored: library(survival) n<-100000 #censored observations x<-rnorm(n) y<-rnorm(n,mean=x) d<-data.frame(x,y) d$ym<-pmin(y,0.5)

Hi there. I am receiving an unexpected error message when creating a new distribution for the survreg() function in the survival package. I understand the survival.distributions() function and have been following the Cauchy example provided in the help file. My goal is to use survreg to fit a gamma distribution to interval censored data. Here is a simple example of what I'm trying to do.

I am trying to use R to do loglogistic hazard estimation. My plan is to generate a loglogistic hazard sample data and then use survreg to estimate it. If everything is correct, survreg should return the parameters I have used to generate the sample data. I have written the following code to do a time invariant hazard estimation. The output of summary(modloglog) shows the factor loading of

I am using psm to model some parametric survival data, the data is for length of stay in an emergency department. There are several ways a patient's stay in the emergency department can end (discharge, admit, etc..) so I am looking at modeling the effects of several covariates on the various outcomes. Initially I am trying to fit a survival model for each type of outcome using the psm

Hi all, Sorry if this has been answered already, but I couldn't find it in the archives or general internet. Is it possible to implement the gompertz distribution as survreg.distribution to use with survreg of the survival library? I haven't found anything and recent attempts from my side weren't succefull so far. I know that other packages like 'eha' and

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 have the following questions about the variance of the random effects in the survreg() function in the survival package: 1) How can I extract the variance of the random effects after fitting a model? For example: set.seed(1007) x <- runif(100) m <- rnorm(10, mean = 1, sd =2) mu <- rep(m, rep(10,10)) test1 <- data.frame(Time = qsurvreg(x, mean = mu, scale= 0.5, distribution =

Dear R-users, I need to use the aftreg function in package 'eha' to estimate failure times for left truncated survival data. Apparently, survreg still cannot fit such models. Both functions should be fitting the accelerated failure time (Weibull) model. However, as G?ran Brostr?m points out in the help file for aftreg, the parameterisation is different giving rise to different

Dear R users, I have been trying to understand what the Weights arguments is doing in the estimation of the parameters when using the Surreg function. I looked through the function's code but I am not sure if I got it or not. For example, if I inclue the Surv function in it: survreg(Surv(vector, status)~1,weights=vector2,dist="Weibull") will it try to maximize the likelihood with

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

Hello, I'm working with some left censored survival data using accelerated failure time models. I am interested in fitting different distributions to the data but seem to be getting the same results from the model fit using survreg regardless of the assumed distribution. These two codes seem to provide the same results: aft.gaussian <-

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

Dear all, I'm asking this question again as I didn't get a reply last time: I'm doing a survival analysis with time-dependent covariates. Until now, I have used a simple Cox model for this, specifically the coxph function from the survival library. Now, I would like to try out an accelerated failure time model with a parametric specification as implemented for example in the survreg

Dear R help list, I am modeling some survival data with coxph and survreg (dist='weibull') using package survival. I have 2 problems: 1) I do not understand how to interpret the regression coefficients in the survreg output and it is not clear, for me, from ?survreg.objects how to. Here is an example of the codes that points out my problem: - data is stc1 - the factor is dichotomous

Hi, I'm estimating a loglogistic aft (accelerated failure time) model, just a simple plain vanilla one (without time dependent covariates), I'm comparing the results that I obtain between aftreg (eha package) and survreg(surv package). If I don't use any covariate the results are identical , if I add covariates all the coefficients are the same until a precision of 10^4 or 10^-5 except

Dear R-Helpers: I have tried everything I can think of and hope not to appear too foolish when my error is pointed out to me. I have some real data (18 points) that look linear on a log-log plot so I used them for a comparison of lm() and survreg. There are no suspensions. survreg.df <- data.frame(Cycles=c(2009000, 577000, 145000, 376000, 37000, 979000, 17420000, 71065000, 46397000,

R users, I am making model selection with an accelerated failure time model using the command survreg within the library survival. As I want to compare models with different probability distributions I need to have the full likelihood. How can I find out what survreg generates: the full likelihood or a likelihood with "unnecessary" constants dropped? Example I want to

Hey all, I am trying to use the survreg function in R to estimate the mean and standard deviation to come up with the MLE of alpha and lambda for the weibull distribution. I am doing the following: times<-c(10,13,18,19,23,30,36,38,54,56,59,75,93,97,104,107,107,107) censor<-c(1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0) survreg(Surv(times,censor),dist='weibull') and I get the following

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

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