Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Reflection on modern methods: competing risks versus multi-state models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2104.03671 v1 pith:CS6KD2JU submitted 2021-04-08 stat.AP

Reflection on modern methods: competing risks versus multi-state models

classification stat.AP
keywords modelscompetingeventsmulti-stateriskssurvivaltheydiseases
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Survival competing risks models are very useful for studying the incidence of diseases whose occurrence competes with other possible diseases or health conditions. These models perform properly when working with terminal events, such as death, that imply the conclusion of the corresponding study. But they do not allow the treatment of scenarios with non-terminal competing events that may occur sequentially. Multi-state models are complex survival models. They focus on pathways defined by the temporal and sequential occurrence of numerous events of interest and thus they are suitable for connecting competing non-terminal events as well as to manage other survival scenarios with higher complexity. We discuss competing risks within the framework of multi-state models and clarify the usefulness of both models for analysing epidemiological data. We highlight the power of multi-state models through a real-world study of recurrent hip fracture from Bayesian inferential methodology.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.