Abstract
This paper discusses regression analysis of current status failure time data with information observations and continuous auxiliary covariates. Under the additive hazards model, we employ a frailty model to describe the relationship between the failure time of interest and censoring time through some latent variables and propose an estimated partial likelihood estimator of regression parameters that makes use of the available auxiliary information. Asymptotic properties of the resulting estimators are established. To assess the finite sample performance of the proposed method, an extensive simulation study is conducted, and the results indicate that the proposed method works well. An illustrative example is also provided.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andersen PK, Gill RD (1982) Cox’s regression model for counting processes: a large sample study. Ann Stat 10:1100–1120
Andersen PK, Ronn BB (1995) A nonparametric test for comparing two samples where all observations are either left- or right-censored. Biometrics 51:323–329
Cheng G, Wang X (2011) Semiparametric additive transformation model under current status data. Electron J Stat 5:1735–1764
Chen L, Sun J (2009) A multiple imputation approach to the analysis of current status data with the additive hazards model. Commun Stat Theory Methods 38:1009–1018
Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc Ser B 34:187–220
Feng Y, Ma L, Sun J (2015) Additive hazards regression with auxiliary covariates for case I interval-censored data. Scand J Stat 42:118–136
Fleming TR, Harrington DP (1991) Counting processes and survival analysis. Wiley, New York
Foutz RV (1977) On the Unique consistent solution to the likelihood equations. J Am Stat Assoc 72:147–148
Huang J (1996) Efficient estimation for the proportional hazards model with interval censoring. Ann Stat 24:540–568
Huang Y, Wang CY (2000) Cox regression with accurate covariates uncertainable: a noparametric approach. J Am Stat Assoc 95:1209–1219
Hu C, Lin D (2002) Cox regression with covariate measurement error. Scand J Stat 29:637–655
Lin D, Oakes D, Ying Z (1998) Additive hazards regression with current status data. Biometrika 85:289–298
Lin D, Ying Z (1993) Cox regression with incomplete covariate measurements. J Am Stat Assoc 88:1341–1349
Liu Y, Zhou H, Cai J (2009) Estimated pseudo-partial-likelihood method for correlated failure time data with auxiliary covariates. Biometrics 65:1184–1193
Liu Y, Wu Y, Zhou H (2010) Multivariate failure times regression with a continuous auxiliary covariate. J Multivar Anal 101:679–691
Nadaraya EA (1964) On estimating regression. Theory Prob Appl 10:186–190
Prentice RL (1982) Covariate measurement errors and parameter estimation in a failure time regression model. Biometrika 69:331–342
SOLVD Investigators (1991) Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 325:293–302
Sun J (1999) A nonparametric test for current status data with unequal censoring. J R Stat Soc Ser B 61:243–250
Sun J (2006) The statistical analysis of interval-censored failure time data. Springer, New York
Wang N, Lin X, Gutierrez RG, Carroll RJ (1998) Bias analysis and SIMEX approach in generalized linear mixed measurement error models. J Am Stat Assoc 93:249–261
Watson GS (1964) Smooth regression analysis. Sankya A 26:359–372
Zhang Z, Sun J, Sun L (2005) Statistical analysis of current status data with informative observation times. Stat Med 24:1399–1407
Zhou H, Pepe MS (1995) Auxiliary covariate data in failure time regression. Biometrika 82:139–149
Zhou H, Wang CY (2000) Failure time regression with continuous covariates measured with error. J R Stat Soc B 62:657–665
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Associate Editor and two reviewers for their critical and constructive comments that greatly improved the paper. This research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China with Grants Nos. 11471252 and 11201349.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Proofs of the asymptotic properties of \(\hat{\theta }\)
Appendix: Proofs of the asymptotic properties of \(\hat{\theta }\)
For the asymptotic properties of \(\hat{\theta }\), we need the following regularity conditions.
-
(1)
Z(t) is bounded.
-
(2)
\(P\{Y_{i}(t)=1\}>0,\) for all \(t\in [0,\tau ]\) and \(i=1,\ldots ,n\).
-
(3)
\(\int _0^{\tau }{\tilde{\lambda }}(t)dt<\infty .\)
-
(4)
There exists a neighborhood \({\mathcal {B}}\) of the true parameter \(\theta _0\) such that \((\partial ^2/\partial \theta _l\partial \theta _j)\varphi _{i}(t,\theta )\) exists and is uniformly continuous on \({\mathcal {B}};\) the function \(\phi _{i}(t,\theta )\) is bounded away from 0 on \([0,\tau ]\times {\mathcal {B}}\). The matrix \(\Sigma (\theta _0)\) is positive definite.
-
(5)
Kernel function \(Q(\cdot )\) is non-negative and uniformly bounded with finite support satisfying that \(\int Q(t)dt=1\) and \(\int Q^2(t)dt<\infty \). Furthermore, \(Q(\cdot )\) has order \(\alpha _{0}\) in the sense that \(\alpha _{0}\equiv \inf \{|\alpha |>p;\int _{R^p}{{\varvec{u}}}^\alpha Q({{\varvec{u}}})d{{\varvec{u}}}\ne 0\},\) where \({{\varvec{u}}}^\alpha =u_1^\alpha \ldots u_p^\alpha , |\alpha |=\alpha _1+\cdots +\alpha _p,{{\varvec{u}}}=(u_1,\ldots ,u_p)',\alpha =(\alpha _1,\ldots ,\alpha _p)',\) and \(\alpha _i's\) are non-negative integers. The bandwidth B satisfying \(\sqrt{n}\parallel B\parallel ^{\alpha _{0}}\rightarrow 0\) and \(\log n/\left( \sqrt{n}\parallel B\parallel ^p\right) \rightarrow 0.\)
-
(6)
For given t, let \(H(u,{{\varvec{v}}},{{\varvec{s}}})\) be the joint distribution of \((\eta Y(t),{{\varvec{Z}}},{{\varvec{X}}}).\) Assume that \(h({{\varvec{v}}},{{\varvec{s}}})=\partial ^2H(1,{{\varvec{v}}},{{\varvec{s}}})/\partial {{\varvec{v}}}\partial {{\varvec{s}}}\) has \(\alpha _{0}\)th continuous derivations with respect to every component of \({{\varvec{v}}}.\)
Proof of the consistency of \({\hat{\theta }}.\) First note the fact that \(n^{-1}U({\hat{\theta }})=0\). Thus it follows from the arguments of Foutz (1977) that it is sufficient to show that the following four statements hold.
-
(a)
\(n^{-1}(\partial U(\theta )/\partial \theta )\) exists and is continuous in an open neighborhood of \(\theta _0.\)
-
(b)
\(n^{-1}(\partial U(\theta _0)/\partial \theta _0)\) is negative definite in probability.
-
(c)
\(n^{-1}(\partial U(\theta )/\partial \theta )\) converges in probability to a fixed function uniformly in an open neighborhood of \(\theta _0.\)
-
(d)
\(n^{-1} U(\theta _0)\) converges to 0 in probability.
First (a) holds obviously. For (b) and (c), using a similar method to that used in the proof of Lemma 1 of Liu et al. (2010), under conditions (1), (2), (5) and (6), we can obtain that
We also can prove that
Furthermore, note that
is asymptotically equivalent to a local square integrable martingale. Therefore by the inequality of Lenglart (Andersen and Gill 1982), we have that the function (11) converges to 0 in probability uniformly in \({\mathcal {B}}.\) Thus we get \(A_1(\tau ,\theta )\) converges in probability to 0 in \({{\mathcal {B}}}\). For \(A_2(\tau ,\theta ),\) note that
where \(S_{n}^{(0)}(t,\theta )\) is equal to \({\hat{S}}_{n}^{(0)}(t,\theta )\) with \({\hat{\Phi }}_{i}(t,\theta )\) replaced by \(\Phi _{i}(t,\theta _0).\) So, \(n^{-1}(\partial /\partial \theta )U(\theta )\) and \(A_2(\tau ,\theta )\) converge in probability to the same limit. It can be easily seen that \(A_2(\tau ,\theta )\) converges in probability to
So (c) holds. By the fact of \(d^{(2)}(t,\theta _0)=s^{(2)}(t,\theta _0)\), that is, \({\tilde{\Sigma }}(\theta _0)=0\), we obtain that
Thus (b) follows from the condition (4) immediately.
For (d), using some similar arguments used as above, we can obtain that \(n^{-1} U(\theta _0)\) converges to the same limit as that of
Thus it is sufficient to show that \(D(\tau ,\theta _0)\) converges to 0 in probability. By the arguments used in Zhou and Wang (2000), we can show that \(\sqrt{n}D(\tau ,\beta _0)\) is equal to
It can be easily seen that, \(E(Q_j)=0,\) by the strong law of large numbers, (d) holds immediately.
Proof of the asymptotic normality of \({\hat{\theta }}\). First note that
and
where \(\theta ^*\) is on the line segment between \({\hat{\theta }}\). To prove the asymptotic normality, it suffices to prove that \(n^{-1/2} U(\theta _0)\) converges to a normal random variable in distribution and that \(n^{-1}(\partial /\partial \theta ^*)U(\theta ^*)\) converges to an invertible matrix. The latter is straightforward by the consistency of \({\hat{\theta }}\) and the convergence proof of \(n^{-1}(\partial U(\theta )/\partial \theta ),\) that is
For the asymptotic normality of \(n^{-1/2} U(\theta _0),\) note that \(n^{-1/2} U(\theta _0)\) can be rewritten as
It can be easily seen that both the first and the second terms are means zero since that \(M_{i}(t)\) is a martingale and \(E(Q_{i})=0,\) and the two terms are mutually independent. By the martingale central limit theorem (Fleming and Harrington 1991), \(I_1\) converges weakly to the normal variable with mean zero and the covariance \((1-\rho )\Sigma _1(\theta _0).\) Through the simple central limit theorem, we obtain that \(I_2\) is asymptotically normal with mean zero and covariance \(\rho \Sigma _2(\theta _0)\). It thus follows from the independence between \(I_1\) and \(I_2\) that \(n^{-1/2}U(\theta )\) converges to a mean zero normal random vector with covariance \((1-\rho )\Sigma _1(\theta _0)+\rho \Sigma _2(\theta _0).\) The theorem thus follows from combining (13) and (14) and the asymptotic normality of \(I_1+I_2.\)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feng, Y., Chen, Y. Regression analysis of current status data with auxiliary covariates and informative observation times. Lifetime Data Anal 24, 293–309 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-016-9389-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-016-9389-5