Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 3, 2026

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
Published on: September 16, 2022
Incorporating validation subsets into discrete proportional hazards models for mismeasured outcomes
1Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, P.O. Box 359928, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. amag@u.washington.edu
Abstract:
Standard proportional hazards methods are inappropriate for mismeasured outcomes. Previous work has shown that outcome mismeasurement can bias estimation of hazard ratios for covariates. We previously developed an adjusted proportional hazards method that can produce accurate hazard ratio estimates when outcome measurement is either non-sensitive or non-specific. That method requires that mismeasurement rates (the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic test) are known. Here, we develop an approach to handle unknown mismeasurement rates. We consider the case where the true failure status is known for a subset of subjects (the validation set) until the time of observed failure or censoring. Five methods of handling these mismeasured outcomes are described and compared. The first method uses only subjects on whom complete data are available (validation subset), whereas the second method uses only mismeasured outcomes (naive method). Three other methods include available data from both validated and non-validated subjects. Through simulation, we show that inclusion of the non-validated subjects can improve efficiency relative to use of the complete case data only and that inclusion of some true outcomes (the validation subset) can reduce bias relative to use of mismeasured outcomes only. We also compare the performance of the validation methods proposed using an example data set.
Insights
Standard survival analysis methods fail with mismeasured outcomes. This study introduces new methods to accurately estimate hazard ratios even when outcome mismeasurement rates are unknown, using a validation subset for improved accuracy and efficiency.
Area of Science:
- Biostatistics
- Epidemiology
- Survival Analysis
Background:
- Standard proportional hazards models are unsuitable for mismeasured outcomes, leading to biased hazard ratio estimates.
- Previous methods required known mismeasurement rates (sensitivity and specificity), limiting their applicability.
Purpose of the Study:
- To develop and compare methods for handling mismeasured outcomes in survival analysis when mismeasurement rates are unknown.
- To investigate the utility of a validation subset with known true failure status.
Main Methods:
- Compared five methods for handling mismeasured outcomes: validation subset only, naive method (mismeasured outcomes only), and three methods combining validated and non-validated subjects.
- Utilized simulation studies to evaluate method performance.
- Applied proposed validation methods to an example dataset.
Main Results:
- Including non-validated subjects improves efficiency compared to using only complete case data (validation subset).
- Incorporating true outcomes from the validation subset reduces bias compared to using only mismeasured outcomes.
- The proposed methods demonstrate improved accuracy and efficiency in handling unknown mismeasurement rates.
Conclusions:
- New methods effectively address outcome mismeasurement in survival analysis without requiring known mismeasurement rates.
- Combining data from validated and non-validated subjects offers a robust approach for accurate hazard ratio estimation.
- These methods enhance the reliability of survival analyses with imperfect outcome data.
Related Concept Videos
Censoring Survival Data
Assumptions of Survival Analysis
Parametric Survival Analysis: Weibull and Exponential Methods
Weibull Distribution
The Weibull distribution is a flexible model used in parametric survival analysis. It can handle both increasing and decreasing hazard rates, depending on its shape parameter...
Kaplan-Meier Approach
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

