10.1007/s40096-020-00366-1

A comparative study with bootstrap resampling technique to uncover behavior of unconditional hazards and survival functions for gamma and inverse Gaussian frailty models

Show Details XML
  • Nihal Ata Tutkun*1,
  • Pius Marthin1,
  1. Department of Statistics, Faculty of Science, Hacettepe University, Beytepe, Ankara, 06800, TR

Published in Issue 2021-01-02

How to Cite

Ata Tutkun, N., & Marthin, P. (2021). A comparative study with bootstrap resampling technique to uncover behavior of unconditional hazards and survival functions for gamma and inverse Gaussian frailty models. Mathematical Sciences, 15(1 (March 2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40096-020-00366-1
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Abstract Applications of misspecified models in the field of survival analysis particularly frailty models may result in poor generalization and biases. Since gamma and inverse Gaussian distributions are often used interchangeably as frailty distributions for heterogeneous survival data, clear distinction between them is necessary. Based on closed form expressions of unconditional hazards and survival functions, in this paper we compare the effectiveness of gamma and inverse Gaussian distributions for frailty term in modeling survival data for heterogeneous populations. Different baseline hazards were considered including exponential, Weibull and Gompertz. We derived the closed form expressions for unconditional hazards and survival functions under each baseline distribution for both gamma and inverse Gaussian frailty models. Both graphical and extensive statistical simulation approaches are applied to compare the models. For the inference purpose, real data concerning the East Coast Fever (ECF) transmission dynamics is applied. General overview from the graphical analysis and results from both real and synthetic data indicate that gamma distribution under the Gompertz and Weibull baseline hazards is better compared to inverse Gaussian in modeling survival data for a heterogeneous population. Simulation, graphical and inferential analyses were done using appropriate packages in R language.

Keywords

  • Frailty,
  • Conditional hazards,
  • Bootstrap resampling technique,
  • Laplace transform

References

  1. Vaupel et al. (1979) Impact of heterogeneity in individual frailty on the dynamics of mortality (pp. 439-454) https://doi.org/10.2307/2061224
  2. Gupta and Gupta (2009) General frailty model and stochastic orderings (pp. 3277-3287) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2009.03.003
  3. Hanagal, D.D.: Correlated positive stable frailty models. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods.
  4. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2020.1736305
  5. (2020) (in press)
  6. Govindarajulu et al. (2011) Frailty models: applications to biomedical and genetic studies 30(22) (pp. 2754-2764) https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4277
  7. Wienke (2011) Chapman & Hall/CRC Biostatistics Series
  8. Hanagal et al. (2017) Correlated gamma frailty models for bivariate survival data 46(5) (pp. 3627-3644)
  9. Jiang, X., Liu, W., Zhang, B.: A note on the prediction of frailties with misspecified shared frailty models. J. Stat. Comput. Simul.
  10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00949655.2020.1811279
  11. (2020) (in press)
  12. Weiss (1990) Biodemography of variation in human frailty (pp. 185-206) https://doi.org/10.2307/2061448
  13. Heckman and Singer (1984) Identifiability of the proportional hazard model (pp. 231-241) https://doi.org/10.2307/2297689
  14. Hougaard (1995) Frailty models for survival data (pp. 255-273) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985760
  15. Hougaard (2000) Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1304-8
  16. Agresti et al. (2004) Examples in which misspecification of a random effects distribution reduces efficiency, and possible remedies 47(3) (pp. 639-653) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2003.12.009
  17. Hanagal and Bhambure (2016) Modeling bivariate survival data using shared inverse Gaussian frailty model 45(17) (pp. 4969-4987) https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2014.901380
  18. Hanagal and Pandey (2017) Correlated gamma frailty models for bivariate survival data based on reversed hazard rate 2(4) (pp. 301-324) https://doi.org/10.1504/IJDS.2017.088102
  19. East Coast Fever (ECF) transmission dynamics dataset.
  20. http://www.vetstat.ugent.be/research/frailty/datasets/
  21. Greenwood and Yule (1920) An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or of repeated accidents 83(2) (pp. 255-279) https://doi.org/10.2307/2341080
  22. Beard et al. (1959) Note on some mathematical mortality models. The lifespan of animals (pp. 302-311) Little Brown and Company
  23. Congdon (1995) Modeling frailty in area mortality (pp. 1859-1874) https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780141703
  24. dos Santos et al. (1995) Nonparametric hazard versus nonparametric frailty distribution in modelling recurrence of breast cancer (pp. 111-127) https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3758(94)00125-F
  25. Duchateau and Janssen (2008) Springer
  26. Pandey, A., Lalpawimawha, R.: Comparison of correlated frailty models. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput.
  27. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2020.1770287
  28. (2020) (in press)
  29. Hanagal (2019) Springer Nature https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1181-3
  30. Hougaard (1984) Life table methods for heterogeneous populations (pp. 75-83) https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/71.1.75
  31. Manton et al. (1986) Alternative models for heterogeneity of mortality risks among the aged (pp. 635-644) https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1986.10478316
  32. Klein et al. (1992) Estimating random effects in the Framingham Heart Study Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7983-4
  33. Keiding et al. (1997) The role of frailty models and accelerated failure time models in describing heterogeneity due to omitted 16(1–3) (pp. 215-224) https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970130)16:2<215::AID-SIM481>3.0.CO;2-J
  34. Price and Manatunga (2001) Modelling survival data with a cured fraction using frailty models 20(9–10) (pp. 1515-1527) https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.687
  35. Economou and Caroni (2005) Graphical tests for the assumption of gamma and inverse Gaussian frailty distributions (pp. 565-582) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-005-5240-0
  36. Kheiri et al. (2007) Bayesian analysis of an inverse Gaussian correlated frailty model 51(11) (pp. 5317-5326) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2006.09.026
  37. Punzo (2019) A new look at the inverse Gaussian distribution with applications to insurance and economic data 46(7) (pp. 1260-1287) https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2018.1542668
  38. Hanagal (2011) Chapman & Hall https://doi.org/10.1201/b10510
  39. Rizzle (2007) Chapman & Hall/CRC The R Series
  40. Boos, D.D.: Introduction to the Bootstrap World. Statistical Science,
  41. 18
  42. (2), Silver Anniversary of the Bootstrap, 168-174 (2003)
  43. Chernick and LaBudde (2011) Wiley