Faraggi D, Simon R
Biometric Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20852, USA.
Stat Med. 1996 Oct 30;15(20):2203-13. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19961030)15:20<2203::AID-SIM357>3.0.CO;2-G.
Continuous measurements are often dichotomized for classification of subjects. This paper evaluates two procedures for determining a best cutpoint for a continuous prognostic factor with right censored outcome data. One procedure selects the cutpoint that minimizes the significance level of a logrank test with comparison of the two groups defined by the cutpoint. This procedure adjusts the significance level for maximal selection. The other procedure uses a cross-validation approach. The latter easily extends to accommodate multiple other prognostic factors. We compare the methods in terms of statistical power and bias in estimation of the true relative risk associated with the prognostic factor. Both procedures produce approximately the correct type I error rate. Use of a maximally selected cutpoint without adjustment of the significance level, however, results in a substantially elevated type I error rate. The cross-validation procedure unbiasedly estimated the relative risk under the null hypothesis while the procedure based on the maximally selected test resulted in an upward bias. When the relative risk for the two groups defined by the covariate and true changepoint was small, the cross-validation procedure provided greater power than the maximally selected test. The cross-validation based estimate of relative risk was unbiased while the procedure based on the maximally selected test produced a biased estimate. As the true relative risk increased, the power of the maximally selected test was about 10 per cent greater than the power obtained using cross-validation. The maximally selected test overestimated the relative risk by about 10 per cent. The cross-validation procedure produced at most 5 per cent underestimation of the true relative risk. Finally, we report the effect of dichotomizing a continuous non-linear relationship between covariate and risk. We compare using a linear proportional hazard model to using models based on optimally selected cutpoints. Our simulation study indicates that we can have a substantial loss of statistical power when we use cutpoint models in cases where there is a continuous relationship between covariate and risk.
连续测量值常常被二分以对研究对象进行分类。本文评估了两种用于确定具有右删失结局数据的连续预后因素最佳切点的方法。一种方法选择能使对数秩检验的显著性水平最小化的切点,该检验用于比较由切点定义的两组。此方法针对最大选择调整了显著性水平。另一种方法采用交叉验证法。后者可轻松扩展以纳入多个其他预后因素。我们在与预后因素相关的真实相对风险估计的统计功效和偏差方面比较了这两种方法。两种方法产生的第一类错误率大致正确。然而,使用未调整显著性水平的最大选择切点会导致第一类错误率大幅升高。交叉验证法在零假设下无偏地估计了相对风险,而基于最大选择检验的方法则导致向上偏差。当由协变量和真实变化点定义的两组的相对风险较小时,交叉验证法比最大选择检验具有更大的功效。基于交叉验证的相对风险估计是无偏的,而基于最大选择检验的方法产生有偏估计。随着真实相对风险增加,最大选择检验的功效比使用交叉验证获得的功效大约高10%。最大选择检验高估相对风险约10%。交叉验证法对真实相对风险的低估最多为5%。最后,我们报告了对协变量与风险之间连续非线性关系进行二分的影响。我们比较了使用线性比例风险模型和使用基于最佳选择切点的模型的情况。我们的模拟研究表明,在协变量与风险存在连续关系的情况下使用切点模型时,我们可能会有显著的统计功效损失。