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.
Competing-risk data, cause-specific hazard measures, and cumulative incidence
Definition
Fix a finite number of causes on a probability space. Let be measurable event times with values in , and assume that the minimum is attained by a unique cause almost surely. The observed first failure time and its cause are so is the smallest label attaining the minimum. For each , which is measurable; the assumed almost-sure uniqueness makes the tie-break irrelevant except on a null set. No independence among the latent times is assumed. When an external right-censoring time is present, the observation is , where and as in Event-time observation, censoring, and truncation schemes, and when ; the cause label is absent when . Thus an event tied with censoring is recorded as an event.
The all-cause survival function is for . For , write ; this is the left limit of by continuity from above for measures (Continuity from above when one set has finite measure). Set .
For each cause , its event subdistribution measure and cause-specific cumulative-incidence function are for Borel and . The cause-specific hazard measure is the measure with density relative to : The extension of by the constant for is nonincreasing on and therefore Borel measurable (Every monotone real function is Borel measurable), so is a nonnegative Borel function and this measure is defined by The measure with density relative to . It may have infinite total mass; no finite-horizon integrability is assumed in this definition.
Depends on
Used by
- Aalen–Johansen cumulative-incidence estimator Algorithm
- The observed first time and cause do not identify the latent joint failure-time law Counterexample
- Higher competing mortality lowers incidence in a two-time table Example
- Cause-specific cumulative incidence as an integral against its hazard measure Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
20 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)