Joint Concordance Index

Existing metrics in competing risks survival analysis such as concordance and accuracy do not evaluate a model’s ability to jointly predict the event type and the event time. To address these limitations, we propose a new metric, which we call the joint concordance. The joint concordance measures a model’s ability to predict the overall risk profile, i.e., risk of death from different event types. We develop a consistent estimator for the new metric that accounts for the censoring bias. We use the new metric to develop a variable importance ranking approach. Using the real and synthetic data experiments, we show that models selected using the existing metrics are worse than those selected using joint concordance at jointly predicting the event type and event time. We show that the existing approaches for variable importance ranking often fail to recognize the importance of the event-specific risk factors, whereas, the proposed approach does not, since it compares risk factors based on their contribution to the prediction of the different event-types. To summarize, joint concordance is helpful for model comparisons and variable importance ranking and has the potential to impact applications such as risk-stratification and treatment planning in multimorbid populations.

[1]  Joseph D. Conklin Classical Competing Risks , 2002, Technometrics.

[2]  Ewout W. Steyerberg,et al.  Prognostic Models With Competing Risks: Methods and Application to Coronary Risk Prediction , 2009, Epidemiology.

[3]  Thomas A. Gerds,et al.  Concordance for prognostic models with competing risks , 2014, Biostatistics.

[4]  Sheldon Greenfield,et al.  Comorbidity and competing risks for mortality in men with prostate cancer , 2011, Cancer.

[5]  G. Heinze,et al.  Competing risks analyses: objectives and approaches , 2014, European heart journal.

[6]  P. Fisher,et al.  Polypharmacy, multimorbidity and the value of integrative medicine in public health , 2013 .

[7]  M. Conner,et al.  Methods to quantify variable importance: implications for the analysis of noisy ecological data. , 2009, Ecology.

[8]  Walter P Wodchis,et al.  The increasing burden and complexity of multimorbidity , 2015, BMC Public Health.

[9]  David C. Atkins,et al.  Cholesterol Reduction and the Risk for Stroke in Men , 1993, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  A. Menotti,et al.  Competing risks and lifetime coronary heart disease incidence during 50years of follow-up. , 2016, International journal of cardiology.

[11]  Bruce Thompson,et al.  Stepwise Regression and Stepwise Discriminant Analysis Need Not Apply here: A Guidelines Editorial , 1995 .

[12]  Martin Schumacher,et al.  Time-dependent covariates in the proportional subdistribution hazards model for competing risks. , 2008, Biostatistics.

[13]  Robert Gray,et al.  A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk , 1999 .