Censored randomization

Let life time X follow exponential density with mean 1 /9. Suppose 9 follow a prior distribution G. Let Y be a censoring random variable which is independent of X. A life time X is observable if. Y < T, otherwise, it is unobservable. Based on censored data, we want to test Hq 9 <9o sHi 9 > 9o,foia given 0q. Under a linear loss, we propose a monotone Bayes test. Since related quantities in the Bayes test are unknown, we apply the Bessel function of the first kind to construct several related quantities and finally we obtain an empirical Bayes test. 

Table 62.5 Randomly censored simulated Weibull data...

A total of 60 eligible papers were identified 22 were observational studies of patients receiving specific treatment 32 were observational studies, not based on specific treatments 6 were randomized controlled trials. No studies adhered to all six methodological principles. When the principles were relaxed to include only an inception cohort with adequate reporting and analysis of censored patients and appropriate endpoints, only two reports met these criteria, both from the Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project (OCSP 184 patients, follow-up over 3.7 years) (Dennis et al. 1989, 1990). 

Censoring Type I Type I censoring occurs when observations are made within prespecified fixed time limits, resulting in a random number of censored observations. An example of such censoring occurs when subjects are enrolled in a study of a given duration, and the event of interest has not occurred in some of the subjects by the end of the observation period. The censoring time will be identical for all such subjects and will equal the prespecified study duration. It is also possible that some subjects will drop out of the study or be lost to follow-up and will have censored observations that are less than the study duration. 

Censoring Type II Type II censoring occurs when the number of events to be observed is prespecified and the duration of study is random. In such cases the study is continued until the prespecified number of events occur, and the data from subjects who have not had the event are censored at an identical value, but this value is not known a priori. This type of censoring is similar to Type I censoring, as the censored time is identical for all subjects who did not drop out of the study. 

Type II censoring has the significant advantage that one can specify in advance how many subjects are to experience the event, and this helps to ensure that sufficient time to event observation is available to allow meaningful characterization of the time to event distribution. However, an open-ended random study period is generally impractical and this type of study is rarely seen. 

Censoring Type III Type III is differentiated from Type I and II censored data, by the censored times that are not identical, even for subjects who do not drop out of a study. This type of censoring occurs when the study is of fixed duration, and the event of interest is duration of a response that is first observed at a random time after the start of the study. As the starting time of the response is random, the censoring time for all subjects who remain enrolled at the end of the study will also be random. 

When analyzing survival data, summary statistics may not have the desired statistical properties, such as unbiasedness, because of possible censoring. The sample mean, for instance, is no longer an unbiased estimator of the population mean (of survival time). Thus, other methods are needed for presenting such data. An approach would be estimating the underlying true distribution. With the distribution estimated, it is then possible to estimate other quantities of interest such as median or mean. The distribution of the random variable T can be described by the usual cumulative distribution function... 

Censoring was randomly implemented to coincide with the censoring rates in the clinical trials. 

The KM suggested that warfarin was associated with a 1.7% (SE 0.4%, p < 0.001) reduction in the cumulative incidence of nonstroke death. This estimate, however, must be interpreted with caution, as the KM is a stratified estimator that is not adjusted for informafive treatment or censoring. Because warfarin treatment decisions are made according to each patient s medical history, that is, are not randomized, the KM is not a consistent estimator of the marginal probability and cannot be interpreted causally. 

Moore, K.L. and M.J. van der Laan. Increasing power in randomized trials with right censored outcomes through covariate adjustment. / Biopharm Stat, 19(6) 1099-1131, 2009c. 

ABSTRACT This article studies an empirical yes testing problem in exponential distributions base on randomly censored data. An empirical Bayes test S is constructed. The rate of asymptotic optimality of S is investigated. Under some conditions, S is shown to be asymptotically optimal with a rate where n is... 

In survival analysis, X can be viewed as the lifetime of some subject under study and 9 is the associated hazard rate. The subject may continue to be in the study program rmtil some death occurs or it drops off the program according to some random censoring variable Y. 

F is the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the marginal distribution 74 based on the random censored data (I(n),Z(nJ). The consistency of F has been studied extensively in the literature. Bitouze, et cd. (1999) derived an exponential-type inequahty for the Kaplan-Meier estimator F which is given as follows. 

Liang, T. 2004. Empirical Bayes estimation with random right censoring. International J. Information and Management Sciences 15(4) 1-12. 

Consider the situation in which m units start service at time 0 and are observed until a time tc when the available Weibull failure data are to be analyzed. Failure times are recorded for the k units that fail in the interval [0, fj. Then the data consist of the k smallest-order statistics Y <. . . censored data, tc is prespecified and k is random. With failure (or Type 11) censored data, k is prespecified and tc = T is random. 

To better understand the behavior of the above categories and to check the validity of the fleet data aggregation for estimatation of the number of failures, we select three random sample data from the data set and apply the same procedure as discussed earlier. The first random data consists of 26 random units and the second and third consist of 25 and 21 random units, respectively. The behavior of ETNF along with the actual total operational time (with/without censoring age) are plotted in Figures 6, 7, and 8, respectively. Results show similar behavior as in the first case (for analysis of all components, see Fig. 5). 

In this paper, we have introduced an approach to compute the cumulative number of failures at fleet level when the recurrent failure events of units within the fleet are chronologically ordered. The proposed model is examined with three random samples. It is observed that in all three samples, the actual total number of failures (estimated by the proposed model) are slightly higher than the expected total number of failures (using the MCF). It is also observed that when the data set is non-censored, the ATNF for all three cases is slightly lower than the ETNF. In addition, the plots show that until around 125,000 fleet-wise operation hours, the ETNF and ATNF approach generates the same results for both censored and non-censored data sets. Therefore, the results obtained by the ATNF of a mature fleet can be used to estimate the number of failures for a new fleet, when the fleet is operated under approximately the same conditions. 

We have seen this before in Equation 9.1 where it is the likelihood for a random sample of n independent Poisson random variables with parameters fit. This means that given A, we can treat the censoring variables lUj as an independent random sample of Poisson random variables with respective parameters /x. Suppose we let T]i = be the linear predictor. Taking logarithm of the parameter /Xj we... 

---