A comparison of time to event analysis methods, using weight status and breast cancer as a case study

Factors affecting the survival of prediabetic patients: comparison of Cox proportional hazards model and random survival forest method

BACKGROUND

The worldwide prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults is experiencing a rapid increase. This study aimed to identify the factors affecting the survival of prediabetic patients using a comparison of the Cox proportional hazards model (CPH) and the Random survival forest (RSF).

METHOD

This prospective cohort study was performed on 746 prediabetics in southwest Iran. The demographic, lifestyle, and clinical data of the participants were recorded. The CPH and RSF models were used to determine the patients' survival. Furthermore, the concordance index (C-index) and time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were employed to compare the performance of the Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model and the random survival forest (RSF) model.

RESULTS

The 5-year cumulative T2DM incidence was 12.73%. Based on the results of the CPH model, NAFLD (HR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.06, 2.85), FBS (HR = 1.008, 95% CI: 1.005, 1.012) and increased abdominal fat (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.04) were directly associated with diabetes occurrence in prediabetic patients. The RSF model suggests that factors including FBS, waist circumference, depression, NAFLD, afternoon sleep, and female gender are the most important variables that predict diabetes. The C-index indicated that the RSF model has a higher percentage of agreement than the CPH model, and in the weighted Brier Score index, the RSF model had less error than the Kaplan-Meier and CPH model.

CONCLUSION

Our findings show that the incidence of diabetes was alarmingly high in Iran. The results suggested that several demographic and clinical factors are associated with diabetes occurrence in prediabetic patients. The high-risk population needs special measures for screening and care programs.

A comparison of machine learning models and Cox proportional hazards models regarding their ability to predict the risk of gastrointestinal cancer based on metabolic syndrome and its components

Background

Little is known about applying machine learning (ML) techniques to identify the important variables contributing to the occurrence of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer in epidemiological studies. We aimed to compare different ML models to a Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model regarding their ability to predict the risk of GI cancer based on metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components.

Methods

A total of 41,837 participants were included in a prospective cohort study. Incident cancer cases were identified by following up with participants until December 2019. We used CPH, random survival forest (RSF), survival trees (ST), gradient boosting (GB), survival support vector machine (SSVM), and extra survival trees (EST) models to explore the impact of MetS on GI cancer prediction. We used the C-index and integrated Brier score (IBS) to compare the models.

Results

In all, 540 incident GI cancer cases were identified. The GB and SSVM models exhibited comparable performance to the CPH model concerning the C-index (0.725). We also recorded a similar IBS for all models (0.017). Fasting glucose and waist circumference were considered important predictors.

Conclusions

Our study found comparably good performance concerning the C-index for the ML models and CPH model. This finding suggests that ML models may be considered another method for survival analysis when the CPH model's conditions are not satisfied.

Avoiding C-hacking when evaluating survival distribution predictions with discrimination measures

MOTIVATION

In this article, we consider how to evaluate survival distribution predictions with measures of discrimination. This is non-trivial as discrimination measures are the most commonly used in survival analysis and yet there is no clear method to derive a risk prediction from a distribution prediction. We survey methods proposed in literature and software and consider their respective advantages and disadvantages.

RESULTS

Whilst distributions are frequently evaluated by discrimination measures, we find that the method for doing so is rarely described in the literature and often leads to unfair comparisons or 'C-hacking'. We demonstrate by example how simple it can be to manipulate results and use this to argue for better reporting guidelines and transparency in the literature. We recommend that machine learning survival analysis software implements clear transformations between distribution and risk predictions in order to allow more transparent and accessible model evaluation.

AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION

The code used in the final experiment is available at https://github.com/RaphaelS1/distribution_discrimination.