Question: Effects of cohort size on survival estimation
gravatar for Tom_L
3.7 years ago by
Tom_L320 wrote:


I'm currently working on survival analyses using different cohorts. I found a striking evidence of relationship between cohort size and survival difference (the larger cohort size, the better survival differences). This sounds logical to me since a big cohort allows more classification error compared to a small one were a single misclassification would be terrible.

As an example, here is a short R script that performs survival analysis in a full cohort (size=100) and then do the same thing on 1000 sub-cohorts (sizes=90) derived from the first one.

mySurvival=function(DF) return(pchisq(survdiff(Surv(time, censor) ~ drug,data=DF)$chisq,1,lower.tail=FALSE))
hmohiv=read.table("", sep=",", header = TRUE) 
TESTED_P=sapply(1:1000,function(x) mySurvival(hmohiv[sample(1:100,90),]))

In my run (takes 5 seconds), ~75% of the randomy generated sub-cohorts have higher P than the reference P.

My hypothesis is that several of my cohorts, which do not have a survival difference at P<0.05, could become significant if they were larger (median size is ~110, from ~50 to ~550). To support my hypothesis (unless my hypothesis is wrong so please correct me), I'm looking for a paper that I can cite (ex: PubMed), but I did not found any. The point is if I search "sample size survival" or "cohort size survival", it quickly switch to a kind of "tumor size survival" query and I get tons of non-related results. Any well-known work I should be aware of?


R • 966 views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 3.7 years ago • written 3.7 years ago by Tom_L320

Try adding "power" to your searches and I expect you'll quickly start getting more useful hits.

ADD REPLYlink written 3.7 years ago by Devon Ryan96k
Please log in to add an answer.


Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 1521 users visited in the last hour