Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 745

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A note on competing risks in survival data analysis

Open access
Satagopan, J M, Ben-Porat, L, Berwick, M, Robson, M, Kutler, D, Auerbach, A D·2004·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Survival analysis encompasses investigation of time to event data. In most clinical studies, estimating the cumulative incidence function (or the probability of experiencing an event by a given time) is of primary interest. When the data consist of patients who experience an event and censored individuals, a nonparametric estimate of the cumulative incidence can be obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method. Under this approach, the censoring mechanism is assumed to be noninformative. In other words, the survival time of an individual (or the time at which a subject experiences an event) is assumed to be independent of a mechanism that would cause the patient to be censored. Often times, a patient may experience an event other than the one of interest which alters the probability of experiencing the event of interest. Such events are known as competing risk events. In this setting, it would often be of interest to calculate the cumulative incidence of a specific event of interest. Any subject who does not experience the event of interest can be treated as censored. However, a patient experiencing a competing risk event is censored in an informative manner. Hence, the Kaplan-Meier estimation procedure may not be directly applicable. The cumulative incidence function for an event of interest must be calculated by appropriately accounting for the presence of competing risk events. In this paper, we illustrate nonparametric estimation of the cumulative incidence function for an event of interest in the presence of competing risk events using two published data sets. We compare the resulting estimates with those obtained using the Kaplan-Meier approach to demonstrate the importance of appropriately estimating the cumulative incidence of an event of interest in the presence of competing risk events.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602102

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 745

Metadata

Authors
Satagopan, J. M., Ben-Porat, L., Berwick, M., Robson, M., Kutler, D., & Auerbach, A. D.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2004-08-10
Volume
91
Issue
7
Pages
1229-1235
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2004009085
Cited by
745
References
20
FWCI
13.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A note on competing risks in survival data analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602102
The paper
Satagopan, J. M., Ben-Porat, L., Berwick, M., Robson, M., Kutler, D., & Auerbach, A. D. (2004). A note on competing risks in survival data analysis. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602102

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.