4.6 Article

Joint longitudinal and time-to-event models for multilevel hierarchical data

期刊

STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 12, 页码 3502-3515

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0962280218808821

关键词

Longitudinal; survival; joint model; shared parameter model; hierarchical; multilevel; cancer

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [APP1093145]
  2. NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence grant [1035261]
  3. UK Medical Research Council (MRC) New Investigator Research Grant [MR/P015433/1]
  4. MRC [MR/P015433/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Joint modelling of longitudinal and time-to-event data has received much attention recently. Increasingly, extensions to standard joint modelling approaches are being proposed to handle complex data structures commonly encountered in applied research. In this paper, we propose a joint model for hierarchical longitudinal and time-to-event data. Our motivating application explores the association between tumor burden and progression-free survival in non-small cell lung cancer patients. We define tumor burden as a function of the sizes of target lesions clustered within a patient. Since a patient may have more than one lesion, and each lesion is tracked over time, the data have a three-level hierarchical structure: repeated measurements taken at time points (level 1) clustered within lesions (level 2) within patients (level 3). We jointly model the lesion-specific longitudinal trajectories and patient-specific risk of death or disease progression by specifying novel association structures that combine information across lower level clusters (e.g. lesions) into patient-level summaries (e.g. tumor burden). We provide user-friendly software for fitting the model under a Bayesian framework. Lastly, we discuss alternative situations in which additional clustering factor(s) occur at a level higher in the hierarchy than the patient-level, since this has implications for the model formulation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据