The additive hazards model specifies the effect of covariates on the hazard in an additive way, in contrast to the popular Cox model, in which it is multiplicative. As the non-parametric model,... Show moreThe additive hazards model specifies the effect of covariates on the hazard in an additive way, in contrast to the popular Cox model, in which it is multiplicative. As the non-parametric model, additive hazards offer a very flexible way of modeling time-varying covariate effects. It is most commonly estimated by ordinary least squares. In this paper, we consider the case where covariates are bounded, and derive the maximum likelihood estimator under the constraint that the hazard is non-negative for all covariate values in their domain. We show that the maximum likelihood estimator may be obtained by separately maximizing the log-likelihood contribution of each event time point, and we show that the maximizing problem is equivalent to fitting a series of Poisson regression models with an identity link under non-negativity constraints. We derive an analytic solution to the maximum likelihood estimator. We contrast the maximum likelihood estimator with the ordinary least-squares estimator in a simulation study and show that the maximum likelihood estimator has smaller mean squared error than the ordinary least-squares estimator. An illustration with data on patients with carcinoma of the oropharynx is provided. Show less
Calster, B. van; Smeden, M. van; Cock, B. de; Steyerberg, E.W. 2020
When developing risk prediction models on datasets with limited sample size, shrinkage methods are recommended. Earlier studies showed that shrinkage results in better predictive performance on... Show moreWhen developing risk prediction models on datasets with limited sample size, shrinkage methods are recommended. Earlier studies showed that shrinkage results in better predictive performance on average. This simulation study aimed to investigate the variability of regression shrinkage on predictive performance for a binary outcome. We compared standard maximum likelihood with the following shrinkage methods: uniform shrinkage (likelihood-based and bootstrap-based), penalized maximum likelihood (ridge) methods, LASSO logistic regression, adaptive LASSO, and Firth's correction. In the simulation study, we varied the number of predictors and their strength, the correlation between predictors, the event rate of the outcome, and the events per variable. In terms of results, we focused on the calibration slope. The slope indicates whether risk predictions are too extreme (slope < 1) or not extreme enough (slope > 1). The results can be summarized into three main findings. First, shrinkage improved calibration slopes on average. Second, the between-sample variability of calibration slopes was often increased relative to maximum likelihood. In contrast to other shrinkage approaches, Firth's correction had a small shrinkage effect but showed low variability. Third, the correlation between the estimated shrinkage and the optimal shrinkage to remove overfitting was typically negative, with Firth's correction as the exception. We conclude that, despite improved performance on average, shrinkage often worked poorly in individual datasets, in particular when it was most needed. The results imply that shrinkage methods do not solve problems associated with small sample size or low number of events per variable. Show less
