Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 70 references

SurvBETA: Ensemble-Based Survival Models Using Beran Estimators and Several Attention Mechanisms

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SurvBETA: an attention-weighted ensemble of Beran estimators for survival analysis.

desk verdict Genuinely new ensemble construction with public code, but the headline significance claim collapses under multiple-comparison correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07638 v1 pith:SIY2T6MC submitted 2024-12-10 cs.LG

Lev V. Utkin , Semen P. Khomets , Vlada A. Efremenko , Andrei V. Konstantinov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords survivalanalysisBeranestimatorensemblelearningattentionmechanismepsilon-contaminationmodelcensoreddataC-indexbootstrapsubsampling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

SurvBETA is a proposed ensemble for survival analysis in which each weak learner is a Beran estimator, a kernel-based rule that estimates the chance of surviving past a given time while using the proximity of other patients' feature vectors to the analyzed patient. Individual survival-function predictions are combined not by simple averaging but by attention weights that measure how close the analyzed patient is to a prototype of each bootstrap subsample. Training the aggregation weights in full generality is hard, so the authors derive a simplified special case from the epsilon-contamination model, which turns training into a linear program over the ensemble weights. On synthetic data with two separated clusters, the model keeps its accuracy as the gap between clusters grows, where a single Beran estimator degrades. On twelve real survival datasets, the optimized variant achieves the best C-index on eight of them, and the reported paired t-test p-values are below 0.05 against all compared baselines.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Beran estimator, written as a product over event times of one minus a normalized kernel weight, which estimates conditional survival functions nonparametrically. Around it the paper builds a three-level attention mechanism: alpha weights within each Beran estimator, mu weights that form a Nadaraya-Watson prototype of each bootstrap subsample relative to the test instance, and gamma weights that aggregate the M subsample survival functions. The special case that makes training tractable replaces gamma with (1-epsilon)*softmax + epsilon*v, where v is a probability vector over subsamples; substituting this into a C-index surrogate with hinge loss produces a linear program in v and slack variables. The bootstrap procedure itself is also load-bearing: subsamples are K-nearest-neighbor balls around randomly chosen centers so that they intersect, ensuring several aggregation weights stay comparable for any test point.

What would settle it

Run the public SurvBETA code on the same twelve datasets with ordinary random bootstrap subsamples instead of the intersecting K-nearest-neighbor scheme; if the reported C-index advantage over random survival forests and gradient-boosted Cox disappears, then the load-bearing component is the sample-generation design, not the attention-weighted aggregation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Beran estimator, usually studied as a standalone nonparametric estimator, can serve as a weak learner in an attention-based ensemble, and that the resulting model is competitive with or better than established survival ensembles. The mechanism rests on three attention levels: kernel weights inside each Beran estimator, prototype weights that locate each bootstrap subsample relative to a test instance, and global aggregation weights that combine the survival functions. Because the aggregation weights depend on how far the test point is from a subsample's prototype, the ensemble can discount weak learners trained mostly on distant clusters. The full dot-product attention version is stated but deliberately not implemented; what is implemented and tested is the special case where each aggregation weight is a mixture of a softmax distance term and a training parameter, derived from the epsilon-contamination model, which makes optimization linear. With that special case, the paper reports the best C-index on most of twelve real datasets and p-values below 0.05 against the single Beran estimator, random survival forests, gradient-boosted Cox, and gradient-boosted AFT models.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluated model is not the full attention architecture but the simplified epsilon-contamination special case, and the paper's empirical claims assume that this simplified weighting, together with the intersecting K-nearest-neighbor bootstrap, preserves the behaviour of the full three-attention model on real data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, attention-weighted Beran ensembles are a viable alternative for tabular survival data, particularly when covariates form separated clusters.
  • The architecture separates weak learners from the two outer attention levels, so the Beran estimators could be swapped for other survival models without changing the aggregation scheme.
  • The epsilon-contamination simplification means training ensemble weights reduces to a linear program, avoiding the overfitting that the authors attribute to the full dot-product attention form.
  • The reported results imply that models built on Cox proportional hazards can be outperformed on clustered data by kernel-based local ensembles.
  • Even without the trained contamination weights, the attention-based aggregation improves on a single Beran estimator, so part of the gain comes from the ensemble geometry alone.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors' cluster explanation suggests a testable prediction the paper does not test: the advantage of SurvBETA over Cox-type models should grow with cluster separation and shrink on homogeneous data; a reader could verify this on non-clustered benchmarks.
  • The full dot-product attention version remains unimplemented; if the simplified weighting is truly a good surrogate, then a regularized version of the full form might improve further, but that is speculation beyond the paper.
  • Because the simplified aggregation is linear in v, the method could be extended to online or streaming survival settings where ensemble weights are updated as new censored observations arrive; the paper does not discuss this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SurvBETA, an ensemble method in which Beran estimators serve as weak learners whose conditional survival functions are aggregated by attention weights. Three attention mechanisms are described: the Beran kernel weights, instance-dependent prototypes of bootstrap subsamples, and a global aggregation weight. A general trainable formulation is given, followed by a simplified special case based on Huber's epsilon-contamination model, where the aggregation weights take the form (1-epsilon)*softmax + epsilon*v and training reduces to a linear or quadratic programming problem. The paper reports synthetic experiments studying ensemble size, cluster distance, subsample size, and other factors, and real-data experiments on 12 benchmarks comparing SurvBETA variants with a single Beran estimator, RSF, GBM Cox, and GBM AFT in terms of C-index, with pairwise significance tests.

Significance. If the empirical claims survive proper statistical analysis, the paper offers a useful and relatively simple ensemble construction for survival analysis that is trainable through a convex reformulation, and it is one of the few attempts to build ensembles around Beran estimators. Strengths of the work include a publicly released implementation, an explicit derivation of the LP/QP special case, and synthetic experiments specifically designed to probe cluster structure, where the proposed method behaves sensibly. The main weakness is that the headline empirical claim, that SurvBETA with optimization 'significantly outperforms all the considered models', is not supported by the statistical evidence as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.2, Table 2] The claim that SurvBETA with optimization 'significantly outperforms all the considered models' rests on five pairwise p-values from a paired t-test over 12 datasets, with no multiple-comparison correction. Applying a Bonferroni correction for the five comparisons in the first row of Table 2 turns 0.035, 0.038, and 0.019 for RSF, GBM Cox, and GBM AFT into 0.175, 0.19, and 0.095, none of which is significant at the 0.05 level. The paper should either declare the comparison family and control its error rate, use a test designed for comparisons across multiple datasets such as the Wilcoxon signed-rank test recommended by Demsar, or substantially soften the conclusion. As written, the 'all models' claim is not supported by the reported evidence.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 reports only mean C-indices over 100 random 60/20/20 splits, with no standard deviations or confidence intervals. Consequently, it is impossible to assess whether individual advantages such as 0.7254 versus 0.7001 on Veterans, or 0.7499 versus 0.6387 on WPBC, are stable across splits or within run-to-run noise. Please report standard errors or confidence intervals for every entry, and if the significance analysis in Table 2 is based on the 12 dataset-level means, account for the variance across the 100 splits as well, for example through a hierarchical or permutation-based comparison.
  3. [Section 6 and Section 7] The authors state in Section 6 that only the simplified epsilon-contamination special case of Eq. (28) is implemented and that the general attention model of Eqs. (24)-(27) is not considered because of the large number of training parameters, and Section 7 repeats that the general problem was not implemented. The abstract and title nevertheless present SurvBETA as a model 'using three attention mechanisms'. The empirical validation therefore covers only a special case. Please add a prominent scope statement that the benchmarked system is the simplified special case, and ensure that the abstract, conclusion, and title do not imply that the full three-attention architecture has been empirically validated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (26)] In the definition of the aggregation attention weight, the second factor in the softmax uses x_j, although the weight is supposed to depend on the prototype e(A_k,x); please correct the notation so the argument matches Eq. (13).
  2. [Section 6.1, kernel definitions] The kernels are defined with u = -||x-x_i||^2/tau, but the Epanechnikov, triangular, and quartic expressions use u^2 or |u|, so the minus sign is confusing; please define u as a nonnegative distance or clarify the intended convention.
  3. [Eq. (23)] In the definition of L_MAE, the index m and the notation S_l(x_i) are not defined; this appears to be a different aggregation from Eq. (18) and should be clarified.
  4. [Eq. (47)] After the substitution beta_k = epsilon*v_k, the optimization problem lists v among the variables, but v does not appear in the objective or constraints; either remove v from the variable list or explicitly state that beta_k encodes the trainable attention weights.
  5. [References] References [26] and [27] appear to be the same paper by Shi Hu et al.; please merge or distinguish them.
  6. [Table 2 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'comprison' should be 'comparison'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

One minor self-citation in the attention-weight design; the headline benchmark comparison is externally grounded and not circular.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 5 (intro) and Section 5.6, Eq. (28)]
    "Similar approach has been used [56, 57] where the random forests and random survival forest were considered as ensemble-based models. ... Let us use the definition of the attention weight γ(k) = γ (x, e(Ak, x)) in the following form proposed in [56]:"

    The special-case attention weight defining the implemented SurvBETA variant is imported from the authors' own prior work [56], with the prototype-weighted ensemble idea also attributed to [56,57]. This is a genuine self-citation supplying the central design choice. It is not a circular justification of the headline claim: that claim is the external benchmark comparison in Tables 1-2 against independent baselines, and the optimization problems (36)-(37)/(42) are algebraically derived from the model's own definitions (28), (33)-(35). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is invoked, and the empirical result does not depend on [56,57] being correct. Hence the self-citation is minor rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's strongest claim is empirical: SurvBETA with optimization achieves the best mean C-index on most of the 12 real datasets (Table 1), with p-values from a paired t-test reported as significant (Table 2). This claim is self-contained against external baselines and is not a fitted input disguised as a prediction. The C-index objective in Eq. (16) is optimized over the ensemble weights v on training/validation portions, and the reported C-indices are computed on held-out test portions across 100 repetitions, which is standard fitting followed by external evaluation. The derivation of the simplified linear-programming special case is algebraic: Eq. (28) defines the attention weights; Eqs. (33)-(35) define P, Q, and R; and constraints (37) are the rearranged C-index inequalities. No equation makes the output equal to the input by construction. The only circularity-adjacent item is that the attention-weight form in Eq. (28) is adopted from the authors' prior work [56], and the prototype-weighted aggregation idea is motivated by [56,57]; these are self-citations. However, the headline empirical outcome is not justified by appeal to those papers, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and the general attention case (24)-(26) is explicitly left unimplemented as a scope limitation rather than used to claim a prediction. The multiple-comparison concern about Table 2's p-values is a statistical-correctness matter, not a circularity matter. Accordingly, the circularity score is 2: one minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No hidden physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on standard kernel survival machinery plus several modeling choices: softmax attention, Huber contamination, nearest-neighbor bootstrap intersection, and finite-horizon expected times. The trainable weights and hyperparameters are fitted to data, so the contribution is the combination, not a new law or new object.

free parameters (7)
  • training attention weights v_k = learned via linear program (Eq. 42) or Adam
    These M simplex-constrained weights are the core trained parameters of the simplified SurvBETA; they are fit to the C-index hinge loss.
  • contamination parameter epsilon = tuned in [0,1] via Optuna; also trainable via beta variables
    Controls the Huber contamination model in Eq. (28) and sets how much of the attention weight is free versus softmax-based.
  • global attention bandwidth w = grids such as 1e-3 to 1e3 or 1e-4 to 1e4
    Softmax temperature for the gamma attention weights in Eq. (28); selected via Optuna.
  • kernel bandwidths tau and eta = grid 1e-3 to 1e3 for Beran and prototype kernels
    Bandwidths for Beran estimator weights and for prototype computation; one kernel is randomly selected per weak learner, but exact per-learner selection is not fully specified.
  • bootstrap subsample size = fraction 0.1 to 0.7
    Number of nearest neighbors around each randomly selected center; tuned via Optuna and critical to the intersecting-subsample assumption.
  • ensemble size M = 10 to emax (emax depends on dataset)
    Number of Beran estimators in the ensemble; tuned via Optuna.
  • regularization lambda = not reported in experiments
    Optional quadratic penalty introduced in Eq. (45); the paper gives no values or ablation for it.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Beran estimator, Eqs. (3)-(6), is a valid nonparametric estimator of conditional survival under random censoring.
    Standard survival-analysis result; used as the weak learner in the ensemble.
  • standard math Normalized kernel and softmax weights form convex combinations, so the aggregated S(t|x) is a valid survival function.
    Relies on gamma weights summing to one, which holds by softmax normalization and the simplex constraint on v.
  • domain assumption The Huber epsilon-contamination model, Eq. (29), is an appropriate representation of attention weights.
    Motivates the special weight form Eq. (28); it is not derived from the survival problem itself.
  • ad hoc to paper Intersecting K-nearest-neighbor bootstrap subsets are needed for ensemble improvement.
    Section 5.2 argues heuristically that without intersection the ensemble degrades to a single Beran estimator; no theorem supports this.
  • domain assumption Expected event times computed from stepwise survival functions, Eq. (18), provide a valid ranking signal for C-index optimization.
    The expectation is truncated to the observed time range, which may bias rankings under heavy censoring.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SurvBETA: Ensemble-Based Survival Models Using Beran Estimators and Several Attention Mechanisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SIY2T6MC

@misc{pith2026241207638,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SurvBETA: Ensemble-Based Survival Models Using Beran Estimators and Several Attention Mechanisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SIY2T6MC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07638}
}
read the original abstract

Many ensemble-based models have been proposed to solve machine learning problems in the survival analysis framework, including random survival forests, the gradient boosting machine with weak survival models, ensembles of the Cox models. To extend the set of models, a new ensemble-based model called SurvBETA (the Survival Beran estimator Ensemble using Three Attention mechanisms) is proposed where the Beran estimator is used as a weak learner in the ensemble. The Beran estimator can be regarded as a kernel regression model taking into account the relationship between instances. Outputs of weak learners in the form of conditional survival functions are aggregated with attention weights taking into account the distance between the analyzed instance and prototypes of all bootstrap samples. The attention mechanism is used three times: for implementation of the Beran estimators, for determining specific prototypes of bootstrap samples and for aggregating the weak model predictions. The proposed model is presented in two forms: in a general form requiring to solve a complex optimization problem for its training; in a simplified form by considering a special representation of the attention weights by means of the imprecise Huber's contamination model which leads to solving a simple optimization problem. Numerical experiments illustrate properties of the model on synthetic data and compare the model with other survival models on real data. A code implementing the proposed model is publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07638 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A structure of attention mechanisms with the corresponding attention weights [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dependence of the C-index on the number of the Beran estimators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dependence of the C-index on the number of points in each cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dependence of the C-index on the distance between cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dependence of the C-index on the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dependence of the C-index on the subsample size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akiba, S

    T. Akiba, S. Sano, T. Yanase, T. Ohta, and M. Koyama. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparam- eter optimization framework. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , pages 2623–2631, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Barnwal, H

    A. Barnwal, H. Cho, and T. Hocking. Survival regression with accelerated failure time model in xgboost. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 31(4):1292–1302, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Van Belle, K

    V. Van Belle, K. Pelckmans, J.A.K. Suykens, and S. Van Huffel. Support vector machines for survival analysis. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Medicine and Healthcare (CIMED2007) , pages 1–8, 2007

    2007

  4. [4]

    Van Belle, K

    V. Van Belle, K. Pelckmans, J.A.K. Suykens, and S. Van Huffel. Survival svm: a practical scalable algorithm. In ESANN, pages 89–94, 2008

    2008

  5. [5]

    R. Beran. Nonparametric regression with randomly censored survival data. Technical report, University of California, Berkeley, 1981

    1981

  6. [6]

    L. Breiman. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning, 24(2):123–140, 1996

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    L. Breiman. Random forests. Machine learning, 45(1):5–32, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    A gradient boosting algorithm for survival analysis via direct optimization of concordance index

    Yifei Chen, Zhenyu Jia, Dan Mercola, and Xiaohui Xie. A gradient boosting algorithm for survival analysis via direct optimization of concordance index. Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2013(1):873595, 2013

    2013

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    D.R. Cox. Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 34(2):187–220, 1972

    1972

  2. [10]

    Curtis, S.P

    C. Curtis, S.P. Shah, S.F. Chin, and et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature, 486(7403):346–352, 2012. 21

    2012

  3. [11]

    J. Demsar. Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7:1–30, 2006

    2006

  4. [12]

    Desmedt, F

    C. Desmedt, F. Piette, S. Loi, Y. Wang, F. Lallemand, B. Haibe-Kains, G. Viale, M. Delorenzi, Y. Zhang, M.S. d’Assignies, and J. Bergh. Strong time dependence of the 76-gene prognostic signature for node-negative breast cancer patients in the TRANSBIG multicenter independent v...

    2007

  5. [13]

    A survey on ensemble learning

    Xibin Dong, Zhiwen Yu, Wenming Cao, Yifan Shi, and Qianli Ma. A survey on ensemble learning. Frontiers of Computer Science , 14:241–258, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Ferreira and M.A.T

    A.J. Ferreira and M.A.T. Figueiredo. Boosting algorithms: A review of methods, theory, and applications. In C. Zhang and Y. Ma, editors, Ensemble Machine Learning: Methods and Appli- cations, pages 35–85. Springer, New York, 2012

    2012

  7. [15]

    Fleming and D.P

    T.R. Fleming and D.P. Harrington. Counting processes and survival aalysis . John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1991

    1991

  8. [16]

    Fox and M.S

    J. Fox and M.S. Carvalho. The rcmdrplugin. survival package: Extending the R commander interface to survival analysis. Journal of Statistical Software , 49:1–32, 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    Freund and R.E

    Y. Freund and R.E. Schapire. A decision theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. Journal of Computer and System Sciences , 55(1):119–139, 1997

    1997

  10. [18]

    Friedman

    J.H. Friedman. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. Annals of Statis- tics, 29:1189–1232, 2001

    2001

  11. [19]

    Friedman

    J.H. Friedman. Stochastic gradient boosting. Computational statistics & data analysis, 38(4):367– 378, 2002

    2002

  12. [20]

    Haarburger, P

    C. Haarburger, P. Weitz, O. Rippel, and D. Merhof. Image-based survival analysis for lung cancer patients using CNNs. arXiv:1808.09679v1, Aug 2018

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hammer, D.A

    S.M. Hammer, D.A. Katzenstein, M.D. Hughes, H. Gundacker, R.T. Schooley, R.H. Haubrich, W.K. Henry, M.M. Lederman, J.P. Phair, M. Niu, and M.S. Hirsch. A trial comparing nucleoside monotherapy with combination therapy in hiv-infected adults with cd4 cell counts from 200 to 500...

    1996

  14. [22]

    Harrell, R

    F. Harrell, R. Califf, D. Pryor, K. Lee, and R. Rosati. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. Journal of the American Medical Association , 247:2543–2546, 1982

    1982

  15. [23]

    Hehlmann, H

    R. Hehlmann, H. Heimpel, J. Hasford, H.J. Kolb, H. Pralle, D.K. Hossfeld, W. Queisser, H. Loef- fler, A. Hochhaus, and B. Heinze. Randomized comparison of interferon-alpha with busulfan and hydroxyurea in chronic myelogenous leukemia. the german cml study group. Blood, 84(12):...

    1994

  16. [24]

    Hosmer, S

    D. Hosmer, S. Lemeshow, and S. May. Applied Survival Analysis: Regression Modeling of Time to Event Data . John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2008

    2008

  17. [25]

    Hothorn, P

    T. Hothorn, P. B¨ uhlmann, S. Dudoit, A. Molinaro, and M.J. van der Laan. Survival ensembles. Biostatistics, 7(3):355–373, 2006. 22

    2006

  18. [26]

    Fridgeirsson, G

    Shi Hu, E. Fridgeirsson, G. van Wingen, and M. Welling. Transformer-based deep survival analysis. In Survival Prediction-Algorithms, Challenges and Applications , pages 132–148. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Transformer-based deep survival analysis

    Shi Hu, Egill Fridgeirsson, Guido van Wingen, and Max Welling. Transformer-based deep survival analysis. In Survival Prediction-Algorithms, Challenges and Applications , pages 132–148. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    P.J. Huber. Robust Statistics. Wiley, New York, 1981

    1981

  21. [29]

    Ibrahim, A

    N.A. Ibrahim, A. Kudus, I. Daud, and M.R. Abu Bakar. Decision tree for competing risks survival probability in breast cancer study. International Journal Of Biological and Medical Research, 3(1):25–29, 2008

    2008

  22. [30]

    Ishwaran and U.B

    H. Ishwaran and U.B. Kogalur. Random survival forests for r. R News , 7(2):25–31, 2007

    2007

  23. [31]

    Ishwaran, U.B

    H. Ishwaran, U.B. Kogalur, E.H. Blackstone, and M.S. Lauer. Random survival forests. Annals of Applied Statistics , 2:841–860, 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    A deep survival analysis method based on ranking

    Bingzhong Jing, Tao Zhang, Zixian Wang, Ying Jin, Kuiyuan Liu, Wenze Qiu, Liangru Ke, Ying Sun, Caisheng He, Dan Hou, et al. A deep survival analysis method based on ranking. Artificial intelligence in medicine , 98:1–9, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Kalbfleisch and R

    J. Kalbfleisch and R. Prentice. The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data . John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1980

    1980

  26. [34]

    Kaneko, A

    S. Kaneko, A. Hirakawa, and C. Hamada. Enhancing the lasso approach for developing a survival prediction model based on gene expression data. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2015(Article ID 259474):1–7, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Katzman, U

    J.L. Katzman, U. Shaham, A. Cloninger, J. Bates, T. Jiang, and Y. Kluger. Deepsurv: Person- alized treatment recommender system using a Cox proportional hazards deep neural network. BMC medical research methodology, 18(24):1–12, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Linero, P

    A.R. Linero, P. Basak, Yinpu Li, and D. Sinha. Bayesian survival tree ensembles with submodel shrinkage. Bayesian Analysis, 17(3):997–1020, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Hitboost: survival analysis via a multi-output gradient boosting decision tree method

    Pei Liu, Bo Fu, and Simon X Yang. Hitboost: survival analysis via a multi-output gradient boosting decision tree method. IEEE Access, 7:56785–56795, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Loprinzi, J.A

    C.L. Loprinzi, J.A. Laurie, H.S. Wieand, J.E. Krook, P.J. Novotny, J.W. Kugler, J. Bartel, M. Law, M. Bateman, and N.E. Klatt. Prospective evaluation of prognostic variables from patient- completed questionnaires. north central cancer treatment group. Journal of Clinical Oncol...

    1994

  31. [39]

    M. Luck, T. Sylvain, H. Cardinal, A. Lodi, and Y. Bengio. Deep learning for patient-specific kidney graft survival analysis. arXiv:1705.10245, May 2017

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Meier, S

    R. Meier, S. Graw, J. Usset, R. Raghavan, J. Dai, P. Chalise, S. Ellis, B. Fridley, and D. Koestler. An ensemble-based Cox proportional hazards regression framework for predicting survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mcrpc) patients. F1000Research, 5:26...

    2016

  33. [41]

    Mogensen, H

    U.B. Mogensen, H. Ishwaran, and T.A. Gerds. Evaluating random forests for survival analysis using prediction error curves. Journal of Statistical Software , 50(11):1–23, 2012

    2012

  34. [42]

    Nadaraya

    E.A. Nadaraya. On estimating regression. Theory of Probability & Its Applications, 9(1):141–142, 1964

    1964

  35. [43]

    Nezhad, N

    M.Z. Nezhad, N. Sadati, K. Yang, and D. Zhu. A deep active survival analysis approach for precision treatment recommendations: Application of prostate cancer. arXiv:1804.03280v1, April 2018

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Deep recurrent survival analysis

    Kan Ren, Jiarui Qin, Lei Zheng, Zhengyu Yang, Weinan Zhang, Lin Qiu, and Yong Yu. Deep recurrent survival analysis. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 33, pages 4798–4805, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Y. Ren, L. Zhang, and P. N. Suganthan. Ensemble classification and regression-recent devel- opments, applications and future directions [review article]. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 11(1):41–53, 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    Ridgeway

    G. Ridgeway. The state of boosting. Computing science and statistics , 31:172–181, 1999

    1999

  39. [47]

    Sagi and L

    O. Sagi and L. Rokach. Ensemble learning: A survey. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 8(e1249):1–18, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    High-dimensional survival analysis: Methods and applications

    Stephen Salerno and Yi Li. High-dimensional survival analysis: Methods and applications. Annual review of statistics and its application , 10:25–49, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Sauerbrei and P

    W. Sauerbrei and P. Royston. Building multivariable prognostic and diagnostic models: transfor- mation of the predictors by using fractional polynomials. Journal of the Royal Statistics Society Series A , 162(1):71–94, 1999

    1999

  42. [50]

    Schmid, M.N

    M. Schmid, M.N. Wright, and A. Ziegler. On the use of harrell’s c for clinical risk prediction via random survival forests. Expert Systems with Applications , 63:450–459, 2016

    2016

  43. [51]

    Street, O.L

    W.N. Street, O.L. Mangasarian, and W.H. Wolberg. An inductive learning approach to prognostic prediction. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 522–530, San Francisco, 1995. Morgan Kaufmann

    1995

  44. [52]

    Explainable survival analysis with uncertainty using convolution- involved vision transformer

    Zhihao Tang, Li Liu, Zongyi Chen, Guixiang Ma, Jiyan Dong, Xujie Sun, Xi Zhang, Chaozhuo Li, Qingfeng Zheng, Lin Yang, et al. Explainable survival analysis with uncertainty using convolution- involved vision transformer. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics , 110:102302, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Ternes, F

    N. Ternes, F. Rotolo, and S. Michiels. Empirical extensions of the lasso penalty to reduce the false discovery rate in high-dimensional cox regression models.Statistics in medicine, 35(15):2561– 2573, 2016

    2016

  46. [54]

    Tibshirani

    R. Tibshirani. The lasso method for variable selection in the cox model. Statistics in medicine , 16(4):385–395, 1997

    1997

  47. [55]

    Uno, Tianxi Cai, M.J

    H. Uno, Tianxi Cai, M.J. Pencina, R.B. D’Agostino, and Lee-Jen Wei. On the c-statistics for evaluating overall adequacy of risk prediction procedures with censored survival data. Statistics in medicine, 30(10):1105–1117, 2011. 24

    2011

  48. [56]

    Utkin and A.V

    L.V. Utkin and A.V. Konstantinov. Attention-based random forest and contamination model. Neural Networks, 154:346–359, 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    Utkin and A.V

    L.V. Utkin and A.V. Konstantinov. Random survival forests incorporated by the nadaraya-watson regression. Informatics and Automation , 21(5):851–880, 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    Utkin, A.V

    L.V. Utkin, A.V. Konstantinov, V.S. Chukanov, M.V. Kots, M.A. Ryabinin, and A.A. Meldo. A weighted random survival forest. Knowledge-Based Systems, 177:136–144, 2019

    2019

  51. [59]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A.N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polo- sukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 5998–6008, 2017

    2017

  52. [60]

    Wang and L

    H. Wang and L. Zhou. Random survival forest with space extensions for censored data. Artificial intelligence in medicine , 79:52–61, 2017

    2017

  53. [61]

    A selective review on random survival forests for high dimensional data

    Hong Wang and Gang Li. A selective review on random survival forests for high dimensional data. Quantitative bio-science, 36(2):85, 2017

    2017

  54. [62]

    P. Wang, Y. Li, and C.K. Reddy. Machine learning for survival analysis: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , 51(6):1–36, 2019

    2019

  55. [63]

    Survtrace: Transformers for survival analysis with competing events

    Zifeng Wang and Jimeng Sun. Survtrace: Transformers for survival analysis with competing events. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computa- tional Biology and Health Informatics , pages 1–9, 2022

    2022

  56. [64]

    G.S. Watson. Smooth regression analysis. Sankhya: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A , pages 359–372, 1964

    1964

  57. [65]

    Deep learning for survival analysis: a review

    Simon Wiegrebe, Philipp Kopper, Raphael Sonabend, Bernd Bischl, and Andreas Bender. Deep learning for survival analysis: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review , 57(65):1–34, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Wozniak, M

    M. Wozniak, M. Grana, and E. Corchado. A survey of multiple classifier systems as hybrid systems. Information Fusion, pages 3–17, 2014

    2014

  59. [67]

    Wright, T

    M.N. Wright, T. Dankowski, and A. Ziegler. Unbiased split variable selection for random survival forests using maximally selected rank statistics. Statistics in Medicine , 36(8):1272–1284, 2017

    2017

  60. [68]

    J. Yao, X. Zhu, F. Zhu, and J. Huang. Deep correlational learning for survival prediction from multi-modality data. In Medical Image Computing and Computer–Assisted Intervention – MIC- CAI 2017, volume 10434 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 406–414. Springer, Cham, 2017

    2017

  61. [69]

    Frydman, D

    Weichi Yao, H. Frydman, D. Larocque, and J.S. Simonoff. Ensemble methods for survival function estimation with time-varying covariates. Statistical Methods in Medical Research , 31(11):2217– 2236, 2022

    2022

  62. [70]

    Z.-H. Zhou. Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms . CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2012. 25

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.