Model inconsistency, illustrated by the cox proportional hazards model
- 30 April 1995
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 14 (8), 735-746
- https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780140804
Abstract
We consider problems involving the comparison of two or more treatments where we have the opportunity to adjust for relevant covariates either conditionally in a regression model or implicitly in repeated measures data, for example, in crossover trials. It is seen that for data arising from non-Normal distributions there is the possibility that models adjusting for covariates and those not adjusting for covariates will be inconsistent, that is, at most one of the models can be valid. Alternatively, even if conditional and unconditional models are valid, parameters in each model may have different interpretations. We note that this presents difficulties for the specification and interpretation of the analysis. It is also clear that model validation is critical. Specific attention is paid to survival data analysed by the Cox proportional hazards model.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- The total ischemic burden European trial (TIBET): Design, methodology, and managementCardiovascular Drugs and Therapy, 1992
- The analysis of failure time data in crossover studiesStatistics in Medicine, 1991
- Misspecified proportional hazard modelsBiometrika, 1986
- Survival models for heterogeneous populations derived from stable distributionsBiometrika, 1986
- Multivariate Generalizations of the Proportional Hazards ModelJournal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 1985
- Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariatesBiometrika, 1984
- Effect of misspecification of regression models in the analysis of survival dataBiometrika, 1984
- Partial likelihoodBiometrika, 1975
- An exact test for comparing matched proportions in crossover designsBiometrika, 1969