Separating Spatial and Clinical Risk with Node-Splitting SVM Survival Trees

Drew Lazar; Aye Aye Maung

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.13847

Separating Spatial and Clinical Risk with Node-Splitting SVM Survival Trees

Drew Lazar·Aye Aye Maung

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Recovering geographic variation in survival requires separating spatial risk from patients' clinical characteristics, a problem complicated by prognostic covariates that are themselves spatially structured. We develop a nonparametric two-stage method for this separation. A clinical survival tree fit to the covariates alone supplies leaf Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard residuals, transferring the censored survival structure to a clinically adjusted scale without imposing a functional form on the clinical hazard, and a second tree fit to these residuals on the coordinates recovers the spatial structure. Both stages are kernel dipole-splitting survival trees, so the resulting spatial risk map is piecewise constant, with sharp, possibly curved boundaries. We establish when the residuals recover the spatial signal: under a multiplicative frailty and an exogeneity condition, they are free of the clinical covariates given location and stochastically ordered by the frailty. An expansion of the frailty Laplace exponent quantifies their approximate exponentiality and identifies the leading remainder. These results assume consistency of the first stage rather than a model class, so the construction extends to other survival estimators. On the LeukSurv leukemia data the method agrees with a Bayesian Gaussian random field frailty about where risk is elevated while resolving sharp adjacencies the smooth surface averages away, and an unadjusted spatial analysis misattributes clinical variation to location. Simulations with known zones, including a sweep through graded violations of exogeneity, locate the point at which the two contributions cease to be separately identifiable, with the smooth benchmark degrading in parallel as that point is approached.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME stat.AP stat.ML

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Drew Lazar, Aye Aye Maung. 2026-08-14. Separating Spatial and Clinical Risk with Node-Splitting SVM Survival Trees. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13847

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↗