Cited by 2,714Statistical Methods and InferenceProbability and Statistical ResearchArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Random survival forests

Open access
Ishwaran, Hemant, Kogalur, Udaya B., Blackstone, Eugene H., Lauer, Michael S.·2008·The Annals of Applied Statistics

Abstract

We introduce random survival forests, a random forests method for the analysis of right-censored survival data. New survival splitting rules for growing survival trees are introduced, as is a new missing data algorithm for imputing missing data. A conservation-of-events principle for survival forests is introduced and used to define ensemble mortality, a simple interpretable measure of mortality that can be used as a predicted outcome. Several illustrative examples are given, including a case study of the prognostic implications of body mass for individuals with coronary artery disease. Computations for all examples were implemented using the freely available R-software package, randomSurvivalForest.

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 · 10.1214/08-aoas169

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Random forests have been extended to the survival context by Ishwaran et al. (2008), who prove consistency of the Random Survival Forests (RSF) algorithm assuming that all variables are categorical.

    “Random forests have been extended to the survival context by Ishwaran et al. (2008), who prove consistency of Random Survival Forests (RSF) algorithm assuming that all variables are categorical.”

    From A random forest guided tour (2016) · cites this paper as Ishwaran et al. (2008)

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Fleming, T. and Harrington, D. (1991). Counting Processes and Survival Analysis . Wiley, New York. MR1100924
  2. Kalbfleisch, J. and Prentice, R. (1980). The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data . Wiley, New York. MR0570114
  3. Rossi, P. H., Berk, R. A. and Lenihan, K. J. (1980). Money, Work and Crime: Some Experimental Results . Academic Press, New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ishwaran, H., Kogalur, U. B., Blackstone, E. H., & Lauer, M. S.
Venue
The Annals of Applied Statistics
Published
2008-09-01
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
841-860
ISSN
  • 1932-6157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7330
OpenAlex
W2052825782
Cited by
2,714
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 357 · 2025: 341 · 2024: 354 · 2023: 324 · 2022: 296 · 2021: 278 · 2020: 183 · 2019: 148 · 2018: 95 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 75 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 17
FWCI
14.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Applied Statistics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Project Euclid (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
random survival forest, right-censored survival data, survival trees, missing data imputation, prognostic model, body mass, coronary artery disease

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