Paper detail

Testing for sufficient follow-up in cure models with categorical covariates

In survival analysis, estimating the fraction of 'immune' or 'cured' subjects who will never experience the event of interest, requires a sufficiently long follow-up period. A few statistical tests have been proposed to test the assumption of sufficient follow-up, i.e. whether the right extreme of the censoring distribution exceeds that of the survival time of the uncured subjects. However, in practice the problem remains challenging. To address this, a relaxed notion of 'practically' sufficient follow-up has been introduced recently, suggesting that the follow-up would be considered sufficiently long if the probability for the event occurring after the end of the study is very small. All these existing tests do not incorporate covariate information, which might affect the cure rate and the survival times. We extend the test for 'practically' sufficient follow-up to settings with categorical covariates. While a straightforward intersection-union type test could reject the null hypothesis of insufficient follow-up only if such hypothesis is rejected for all covariate values, in practice this approach is overly conservative and lacks power. To improve upon this, we propose a novel test procedure that relies on the test decision for one properly chosen covariate value. Our approach relies on the assumption that the conditional density of the uncured survival time is a non-increasing function of time in the tail region. We show that both methods yield tests of asymptotically level $α$ and investigate their finite sample performance through simulations. The practical application of the methods is illustrated using a skin melanoma dataset.

preprint2026arXivOpen 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.