Landmark estimation of transition probabilities in non-Markov multi-state models with covariates
- 7 Downloads
In non-Markov multi-state models, the traditional Aalen–Johansen (AJ) estimator for state transition probabilities is generally not valid. An alternative, suggested by Putter and Spitioni, is to analyse a subsample of the full data, consisting of the individuals present in a specific state at a given landmark time-point. The AJ estimator of occupation probabilities is then applied to the landmark subsample. Exploiting the result by Datta and Satten, that the AJ estimator is consistent for state occupation probabilities even in non-Markov models given that censoring is independent of state occupancy and times of transition between states, the landmark Aalen–Johansen (LMAJ) estimator provides consistent estimates of transition probabilities. So far, this approach has only been studied for non-parametric estimation without covariates. In this paper, we show how semi-parametric regression models and inverse probability weights can be used in combination with the LMAJ estimator to perform covariate adjusted analyses. The methods are illustrated by a simulation study and an application to population-wide registry data on work, education and health-related absence in Norway. Results using the traditional AJ estimator and the LMAJ estimator are compared, and show large differences in estimated transition probabilities for highly non-Markov multi-state models.
KeywordsMulti-state models The Markov property Transition probabilities Landmarking Aalen–Johansen estimator
This work was financially supported by the Research Council of Norway (Grant Nos. 237831, 218368 and 273674).
- Andersen PK, Pohar Perme M (2013) Multistate models. In: Klein JP, van Houwelingen HC, Ibrahim JG, Scheike TH (eds) Handbook of survival analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, pp 417–439Google Scholar
- Cole SR, Hernán MA, Anastos K, Jamieson BD, Robins JM (2007) Determining the effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy on changes in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA viral load using a marginal structural left-censored mean model. Am J Epidemiol 166(2):219–227Google Scholar
- de Wreede LC, Fiocco M, Putter H (2011) mstate: an R package for the analysis of competing risks and multi-state models. J Stat Softw 38(7):1–30Google Scholar
- Gran JM, Lie SA, Øyeflaten I, Borgan Ø, Aalen OO (2015) Causal inference in multi-state models-sickness absence and work for 1145 participants after work rehabilitation. BMC Public Health 15(1):1082Google Scholar
- Hernan M, Robins JM (2018) Causal inference. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Hoff R, Corbett K, Mehlum IS, Mohn FA, Kristensen P, Hanvold TN, Gran JM (2018) The impact of completing upper secondary education - a multi-state model for work, education and health in young men. BMC Public Health 18(1):556Google Scholar
- Keiding N, Klein JP, Horowitz MM (2001) Multi-state models and outcome prediction in bone marrow transplantation. Stat Med 20(12):1871–1885Google Scholar
- Robins JM, Hernan MA, Brumback B (2000) Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 11(5):550–560Google Scholar
- Sundet JM, Barlaug DG, Torjussen TM (2004) The end of the Flynn effect? A study of secular trends in mean intelligence test scores of Norwegian conscripts during half a century. Intelligence 32(4):349–362Google Scholar
- Wechsler D (1955) Manual for the Wechsler adult intelligence scale. Psychological Corp., Oxford, EnglandGoogle Scholar