Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Weighted analyses for cohort sampling designs

  • Published:
Lifetime Data Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 31 March 2009

An Erratum to this article was published on 31 March 2009

Abstract

Weighted analysis methods are considered for cohort sampling designs that allow subsampling of both cases and non-cases, but with cases generally sampled more intensively. The methods fit into the general framework for the analysis of survey sampling designs considered by Lin (Biometrika 87:37–47, 2000). Details are given for applying the general methodology in this setting. In addition to considering proportional hazards regression, methods for evaluating the representativeness of the sample and for estimating event-free probabilities are given. In a small simulation study, the one-sample cumulative hazard estimator and its variance estimator were found to be nearly unbiased, but the true coverage probabilities of confidence intervals computed from these sometimes deviated significantly from the nominal levels. Methods for cross-validation and for bootstrap resampling, which take into account the dependencies in the sample, are also considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barlow WE (1994) Robust variance estimation for the case-cohort design. Biometrics 50: 1064–1072

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Borgan O, Langholz B, Samuelsen SO, Goldstein L, Pagoda J (2000) Exposure stratified case-cohort designs. Lifetime Data Anal 6: 39–58

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Breslow NE, Wellner JA (2007) Weighted likelihood for semiparametric models and two-phase stratified samples, with application to Cox regression. Scand J Stat 34: 88–102

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chen K, Lo S-H (1999) Case-cohort and case–control analysis with Cox’s model. Biometrika 86: 755–764

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chen K (2001) Generalized case-cohort sampling. J R Stat Soc B 63: 791–809

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy A, Simon RM (2007) Critical review of published microarray studies for cancer outcome and guidelines on statistical analysis and reporting. J Natl Cancer Inst 99: 147–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein LJ, Gray R, Badve S, Childs BH, Yoshizawa C, Rowley S, Shak S, Baehner FL, Ravdin PM, Davidson NE, Sledge GW, Perez E, Shulman LN, Martino S, Sparano JA (2008) Prognostic utility of the 21-gene assay in hormone receptor-positive operable breast cancer compared with classical clinicopathologic features. J Clin Oncol 26(25). doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4501

  • Lin DY (2000) On fitting Cox’s proportional hazards models to survey data. Biometrika 87: 37–47

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Nan B (2004) Efficient estimation for case-cohort studies. Can J Stat 32: 403–419

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Overton WS, Stehman SV (1995) The Horvitz-Thompson theorem as a unifying perspective for probability sampling: with examples from natural resource sampling. Am Stat 49: 261–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice RL (1986) A case-cohort design for epidemiologic cohort studies and disease prevention trials. Biometrika 73: 1–11

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice RL, Breslow NE (1978) Retrospective studies and failure time models. Biometrika 65: 153–158

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rademacher MD, McShane LM, Simon R (2002) A paradigm for class prediction using gene expression profiles. J Comput Biol 9: 505–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues L, Kirkwood BR (1990) Case–control designs in the study of common diseases: updates on the demise of the rare disease assumption and the choice of sampling scheme for controls. Int J Epidemiol 19: 205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman KJ, Greenland S (1998) Modern Epidemiology, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundle AG, Vineis P, Ahsan H (2005) Design options for molecular epidemiology research within cohort studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14: 1899–1907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelsen SO, Anestad H, Skrondal A (2007) Stratified case-cohort analysis of general cohort sampling designs. Scand J Stat 34: 103–119

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Scheike TH, Martinussen T (2004) Maximum likelihood estimation for Cox’s regression model under case-cohort sampling. Scand J Stat 31: 283–293

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Therneau TM, Grambsch PM (2000) Modeling survival data. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Robert J. Gray

Authors
  1. Robert J. Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert J. Gray.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10985-009-9116-6

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gray, R.J. Weighted analyses for cohort sampling designs. Lifetime Data Anal 15, 24–40 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-008-9095-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-008-9095-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation