London Hub for Trials Methodology Research, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, Aviation House, London, WC2B 6NH, UK.
Stat Med. 2012 Oct 15;31(23):2644-59. doi: 10.1002/sim.5460. Epub 2012 Jul 5.
Several R(2) -type measures have been proposed to evaluate the predictive ability of a survival model. In Part I, we classified the measures into four categories and studied the measures in the explained variation category. In this paper, we study the remaining measures in a similar fashion, discussing their strengths and shortcomings. Simulation studies are used to examine the performance of the measures with respect to the criteria we set out in Part I. Our simulation studies showed that among the measures studied in this paper, the measures proposed by Kent and O'Quigley ρ(W)(2) (and its approximation ρ(W,A)(2)) and Schemper and Kaider R(SK)(2) perform better with respect to our criteria. However, our investigations showed that ρ(W)(2) is adversely affected by the distribution of covariate and the presence of influential observations. The results show that the other measures perform poorly, primarily because they are affected either by the degree of censoring or the follow-up period.
已经提出了几种 R(2) 型度量标准来评估生存模型的预测能力。在第一部分中,我们将这些度量标准分为四类,并研究了解释变化类别的度量标准。在本文中,我们以类似的方式研究其余的度量标准,讨论它们的优缺点。模拟研究用于根据我们在第一部分中设定的标准来检查这些度量标准的性能。我们的模拟研究表明,在所研究的度量标准中,Kent 和 O'Quigley ρ(W)(2)(及其近似 ρ(W,A)(2))和 Schemper 和 Kaider R(SK)(2) 这两种度量标准在我们的标准下表现更好。然而,我们的调查表明,ρ(W)(2)受到协变量分布和有影响的观测值的不利影响。结果表明,其他度量标准表现不佳,主要是因为它们受到删失程度或随访期的影响。