The Frailty Concept

  • David D. HanagalEmail author
Part of the Industrial and Applied Mathematics book series (INAMA)


An individual said to be frail if he or she is much more susceptible (exposed or infected) to adverse events than others. Clayton (1978) introduced the term frailty to indicate that different individuals are at risk even though on the surface they may appear to be quite similar with respect to measurable attributes such as age, gender, weight, etc. He used the term frailty to represent an unobservable random effect shared by subjects with similar (unmeasured) risks in the analysis of mortality rates. A random effect describes excess risk or frailty for distinct categories, such as individuals or families, over and above any measured covariates. Thus, random effect or frailty models have been introduced into the statistical literature in an attempt to account for the existence of unmeasured attributes such as genotype that do introduce heterogeneity into a study population. It is recognized that individuals in the same family are more similar than the individuals in different families because they share similar genes and similar environment. Thus, frailty or random effect models try to account for correlations within groups. Such groups arise naturally in those studies involving two or more failure times on the same individual subject. These failure times may be times to the recurrence of the same event or times to the occurrence of different types of events. Examples include the time sequences of asthmatic attacks, infection episodes, tumor diagnosis, tumor recurrences or bleeding incidents in individual subjects (Prentice et al. 1981).


  1. Aalen, O.O.: Two examples of modelling heterogeneity in survival analysis. Scand. J. Stat. 14, 19–25 (1987)Google Scholar
  2. Aalen, O.O.: Heterogeneity in survival analysis. Stat. Med. 7, 1121–1137 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babikar, A., Cuzick, J.: A simple frailty model for family studies with covariates. Stat. Med. 13, 1679–1692 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clayton, D.G.: A model for association in bivariate life tables and its application in epidemiological studies of familial tendency in chronic disease incidence. Biometrika 65, 141–151 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox, D.R.: Regression models and life tables (with discussions). J. R. Stat. Soc., B 34, 187–220 (1972)Google Scholar
  6. Elbers, C., Rider, G.: True and spurious duration dependence: the identifibility of the proportional hazard model. Rev. Econ. Stud. 49, 403–409 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Flinn, C.J., Heckman, J.J.: New methods for analyzing individual event histories. Social. Methodol. pp. 99–140 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heckman, J., Singer, B.: The identifiability of the proportional hazard model. Rev. Econ. Stud. 51(2), 231–241 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hedeker, D., Siddiqui, O., Hu, F.B.: Random effects regression analysis of correlated group time survival data. School of Public Health and Prevention Research Cancer. University of Illinois, Chicago (1996)Google Scholar
  10. Holt, J.D., Prentice, R.L.: Survival analysis in twin studies and matched pair experiments. Biometrika 61(1), 17–30 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Honore, B.E.: Identification results for duration models with multiple spells. Rev. Econ. Stud. 60, 241–246 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hougaard, P., Muglogaard., Borch-Johnsen, K.: Heterogeneity models of disease susceptibility with application to diabetic nephropathy. Biometrics 50(4), 1178–1188 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hougaard, P.: Frailty models for survival data. Lifetime Data Analysis, 1, 255–274 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hougaard, P.: A class of multivariate failure time distributions. Biometrika 73, 671–678 (1986a)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Hougaard, P.: Survival models for hetrogeneous populations derived from stable distributions. Biometrika 73, 387–396 (1986b)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iachine, I.A., Yashin, A.I.: Identifiability of bivariate frailty models based on additive independent components. Research Report 8, Department of Statistics and Demography, Odense University, Denmark (1998)Google Scholar
  17. Iachine, I.A.: . Identifiability of bivariate frailty models. Working Paper, Department of Statistics and Demography, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark (2006)Google Scholar
  18. Keiding, N., Andersen, P.K., Klein, J.P.: The role of frailty models and accelerated failure time models in describing heterogeneity due to omitted covariates. Stat. Med. 16(1–3), 215–224 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keyfitz, N., Littman, G.: Mortality in a heterogeneous population. Popul. Stud. 33, 333–342 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lancaster, T.: The Economic Analysis of Transition Data. University Press Cambridge, London (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindstorm, D.P.: Economic opportunities in Mexico and return to the United States. Demography 33, 357–374 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacLachlan, G.J., Basford, K.E.: Mixture models: Inference and applications to clustering. Statistics:Textbooks and monographs, Vol. 84. Marcel Dekker, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  23. McCall, B.P.: Testing the proportional hazard assumptions in the presence of unmeasured heterogeneity: an application to the unemployment durations of displaced workers. J. Appl. Econ., B 44, 226–233 (1994)Google Scholar
  24. Melino, A., Sueyoshi, G.T.: A simple approach to the identifiability of the proportional hazard model. Econ. Lett. 33, 63–68 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oakes, D.: Bivariate survival models induced by frailties. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 84, 487–493 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oakes, D.: A model for association in bivariate survival data. J. R. Stat. Soc., B 44, 414–493 (1982)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Oakes, D.: Semiparametric inference in bivariate survival data. Biometrika 73, 353–361 (1986)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Parner, E.: Asymptotic theory for the correlated gamma-frailty model. Ann. Stat. 26(1), 183–214 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pickles, A., Crouchley, R.: A comparison of frailty models for multivariate survival data. Stat. Med. 14, 1447–1461 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prentice, R.L., Williams, B.J., Peterson, A.V.: On the regression analysis of multivariate failure time data. Biometrika 68, 373–379 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ridder, G.: The non-parametric identification of generalized accelerated failure time models. Rev. Econ. Stud. 57(2), 167–181 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shih, J.H., Louis, T.A.: Inferences on the association parameter in copula models for bivariate data. Biometrics 51(4), 1384–1399 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Trussel, J., Richards, T.: Correcting for unobserved heterogeneity in hazard models using Heckman-Singer procedure. Social. Methodol. pp. 242–276 (1985)Google Scholar
  34. Vaupel, J.W.: Inherited frailty and longevity. Demography 25(2), 139–149 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vaupel, J.W., Manton, K.G., Stallard, E.: The impact of heterogeneity on individual frailty on the dynamic of mortality. Demography 16(3), 439–454 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yashin, A.I., Iachine, I.A., Begun, A.S.: Mortality modeling: a review. Math. Popul. Stud. 8(4), 305–332 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zelterman, D.: A statistical distribution with an unbounded hazard function and its application to a theory from demography. Biometrics 48, 807–818 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Symbiosis Statistical InstituteSymbiosis International UniversityPuneIndia

Personalised recommendations