How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Aalen–Johansen cumulative-incidence estimator
Definition
Input: A finite sample of right-censored records for causes, using and from Event-time observation, censoring, and truncation schemes. The observed cause label is present only when . Fix a horizon .
The pointwise population target is ; the algorithm returns its finite-sample estimate.
For each event time , define the risk count and cause-specific event counts by All subjects with an event at are included in , so tied observed failures are grouped before updating and at every event time. Censorings at do not contribute to ; a subject with is an event by the stated convention.
Procedure:
- List the distinct observed event times in increasing order, with all causes at a common time grouped into the same counts .
- Initialize and for each cause.
- At each listed , set
- Keep the estimates constant between event times and return .
Equivalently, The convention at allows a baseline event; when there is none, these formulas agree with the product-limit convention in Nelson–Aalen, Kaplan–Meier, and Greenwood estimators.
This procedure is a finite-sample definition, not a consistency or variance theorem. A common sampling setup for interpreting it as an estimator of a population law has IID subject records (Identical distribution and IID families), independent censoring (Independent random elements), and , a positive censoring-support condition through . These are model assumptions, not consequences of the formula. This item does not invoke a counting-process compensator, martingale bracket, or process-limit result.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
23 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Lu Tian and Richard Olshen, Competing Risk and Alternatives to Cox Model, Stanford University STAT331, slides 2–12 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Janne Pitkäniemi and Esa Läärä, Survival analysis with competing risks, Statistical Practice in Epidemiology using R, University of Tartu, slides 13–24 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Peter C. Austin, D. S. Lee, and Jason P. Fine, Introduction to the Analysis of Survival Data in the Presence of Competing Risks, Circulation 133(6) (2016), pp. 601–609 (standard reference, not scraped)