Capturing heterogeneous time-variation in covariate effects in non-proportional hazard regression models

Niklas Hagemann; Thomas Kneib; Kathrin Möllenhoff

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2501.13525

Capturing heterogeneous time-variation in covariate effects in non-proportional hazard regression models

Niklas Hagemann·Thomas Kneib·Kathrin Möllenhoff

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A central focus in survival analysis is examining how covariates influence survival time. These covariate effects are often found to be either time-varying, heterogeneous - such as being specific to patients, treatments, or subgroups - or exhibit both characteristics simultaneously. While the standard model, the Cox proportional hazards model, allows neither time-varying nor heterogeneous effects, several extensions to the Cox model as well as alternative modeling frameworks have been introduced. However, no unified framework for incorporating heterogeneously time-varying effects of covariates has been proposed yet. Such effects occur when a covariate influences survival not only in a heterogeneous and time-varying manner, but when the time-variation is also heterogeneous. We propose to model such effects by introducing heterogeneously time-varying coefficients to piecewise exponential additive mixed models. We deploy functional random effects, also known as factor smooths, to model such coefficients as the interaction effect of heterogeneity and time-variation. Our approach allows for non-linear time-effects due to being based on penalized splines and uses an efficient random effects basis to model the heterogeneity. Using a penalized basis prevents overfitting in case of absence of such effects. In addition, the penalization mostly solves the problem of choosing the number of intervals which is usually present in unregularized piecewise exponential approaches. We demonstrate the superiority of our approach in comparison to competitors by means of a simulation study. Finally, the practical application and relevance are outlined by presenting a brain tumor case study.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME math.ST stat.TH

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Niklas Hagemann, Thomas Kneib, Kathrin Möllenhoff. 2025-01-23. Capturing heterogeneous time-variation in covariate effects in non-proportional hazard regression models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.13525

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗