Paper detail

A Multiple kernel testing procedure for non-proportional hazards in factorial designs

In this paper we propose a Multiple kernel testing procedure to infer survival data when several factors (e.g. different treatment groups, gender, medical history) and their interaction are of interest simultaneously. Our method is able to deal with complex data and can be seen as an alternative to the omnipresent Cox model when assumptions such as proportionality cannot be justified. Our methodology combines well-known concepts from Survival Analysis, Machine Learning and Multiple Testing: differently weighted log-rank tests, kernel methods and multiple contrast tests. By that, complex hazard alternatives beyond the classical proportional hazard set-up can be detected. Moreover, multiple comparisons are performed by fully exploiting the dependence structure of the single testing procedures to avoid a loss of power. In all, this leads to a flexible and powerful procedure for factorial survival designs whose theoretical validity is proven by martingale arguments and the theory for $V$-statistics. We evaluate the performance of our method in an extensive simulation study and illustrate it by a real data analysis.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.