↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of the conditional inference survival forest model to random survival forests based on a simulation study as well as on two applications with time-to-event data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparison of the conditional inference survival forest model to random survival forests based on a simulation study as well as on two applications with time-to-event data
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0383-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justine B. Nasejje, Henry Mwambi, Keertan Dheda, Maia Lesosky

Abstract

Random survival forest (RSF) models have been identified as alternative methods to the Cox proportional hazards model in analysing time-to-event data. These methods, however, have been criticised for the bias that results from favouring covariates with many split-points and hence conditional inference forests for time-to-event data have been suggested. Conditional inference forests (CIF) are known to correct the bias in RSF models by separating the procedure for the best covariate to split on from that of the best split point search for the selected covariate. In this study, we compare the random survival forest model to the conditional inference model (CIF) using twenty-two simulated time-to-event datasets. We also analysed two real time-to-event datasets. The first dataset is based on the survival of children under-five years of age in Uganda and it consists of categorical covariates with most of them having more than two levels (many split-points). The second dataset is based on the survival of patients with extremely drug resistant tuberculosis (XDR TB) which consists of mainly categorical covariates with two levels (few split-points). The study findings indicate that the conditional inference forest model is superior to random survival forest models in analysing time-to-event data that consists of covariates with many split-points based on the values of the bootstrap cross-validated estimates for integrated Brier scores. However, conditional inference forests perform comparably similar to random survival forests models in analysing time-to-event data consisting of covariates with fewer split-points. Although survival forests are promising methods in analysing time-to-event data, it is important to identify the best forest model for analysis based on the nature of covariates of the dataset in question.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 17%
Student > Master 19 17%
Researcher 13 12%
Other 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 31 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 12%
Computer Science 12 11%
Mathematics 12 11%
Engineering 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Other 27 24%
Unknown 38 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2019.
All research outputs
#14,076,260
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,363
of 2,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,903
of 316,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#19
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,684 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.