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 risks and cumulative incidence
1 · Prerequisites
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Complete Metrizability, Čech-Completeness, and Baire Category
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Conditional Distributions and Regular Conditional Probability
- Conditional Expectation
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Countability Axioms and Cardinal Functions
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Estimators and Randomized Procedures
- Event observation, censoring, truncation
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Independence Borel Cantelli and Zero One Laws
- Infinite Product Measures and Kolmogorov Extension
- Lebesgue-Stieltjes Measures and Distribution Functions
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Markov Kernels and Markov Chains
- Measurable Functions and Simple Approximation
- Measures and Their Basic Properties
- Metric Spaces
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Nelson–Aalen, Kaplan–Meier, Greenwood
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Outer Measure and the Caratheodory Extension Theorem
- Pointwise Extended-Real Function Products
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Probability Spaces Random Variables and Expectation
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Separation Axioms: the Hierarchy
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Sigma Algebras and Borel Sets
- Signed and Complex Measures Hahn and Jordan
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Standard-Borel Real Codings and Determining Classes
- Statistical Experiments, Models and Identifiability
- Subspaces, Products, and Quotients
- Suprema and Infima
- The Cantor Set, Baire Category, and Measure Zero in ℝ
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Exponential Function
- The Lebesgue Integral and the Convergence Theorems
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Lᵖ Spaces Holder Minkowski and Riesz Fischer
- The Radon Nikodym Theorem and Lebesgue Decomposition
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The Topology of Euclidean Space
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
- Triangularisation, Generalised Eigenspaces and Jordan Canonical Form
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
- Weak Laws and Series of Independent Random Variables
2 · Summary
For finitely many causes, this page distinguishes the latent cause-specific times from the observed first time and cause. It defines the event subdistribution, all-cause survival, and cause-specific hazard measure, then proves the cumulative-incidence identity with its left-limit convention, including atoms. The Aalen–Johansen procedure is a finite-sample definition with grouped event times and an explicit event-at-censoring tie rule. Its fixed-time output is proved to be a statistic. Independent censoring and positive support are model conditions for population interpretation; the page makes no consistency, variance, or process-limit claim and assumes no independence among latent cause-specific times.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
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.
Cause-specific cumulative incidence as an integral against its hazard measure
Statement
For every cause and every , the cumulative incidence decomposes as If has a Lebesgue density and for every , then for Lebesgue-a.e. with , and
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite-cause competing-risk model as in Competing-risk data, cause-specific hazard measures, and cumulative incidence, its event subdistribution , survival function , and cause-specific hazard measure .
Competing-risk data, cause-specific hazard measures, and cumulative incidence: , , and with when and otherwise.
The measure with density relative to : if is nonnegative and measurable, then is the measure defined by .
Integrating against a density agrees with integrating the product: for nonnegative measurable , .
Every monotone real function is Borel measurable: every monotone real function is Borel measurable.
Proof
The set function is a finite measure: it is the restriction of the law of to the measurable cause slice , so disjoint Borel sets have disjoint preimages and probability countable additivity applies.
The function is nonincreasing, hence Borel by [F4]. Thus is Borel and is nonnegative Borel.
The set is an upper interval. If , then . If , then and each event on the right has probability ; hence again . The empty case is immediate.
By [F2], is a measure.
Applying [F3] with gives . The penultimate equality uses step 3.1, so this proves the measure-valued identity, including atoms and .
Suppose and for every . For each integer , the set has at most points, since distinct singleton events are disjoint and their probabilities sum to at most . Every positive atom belongs to some , so is countable and therefore Lebesgue-null. For , the definitions and give ; hence outside . Also , so on . Since , [F1, F3] give , whose density agrees with Lebesgue-a.e. on . Finally, because has a Lebesgue density, so the point contributes nothing to either side of step 4.1; substituting the density on into that identity gives the stated formula, including .
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.
Fixed-time Aalen–Johansen outputs are well-defined statistics
Statement
Fix , finite , and , and let carry its Borel sigma-algebra as a Euclidean subspace, where status denotes censoring and status denotes an observed cause- event. Let be any statistical experiment with sample space . Equip with its Borel sigma-algebra. The output vector of Aalen–Johansen cumulative-incidence estimator at horizon is a measurable map and hence a statistic in . Every event-time denominator is positive.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The statistical experiment, sample space, and fixed horizon in the Statement, with the procedure of Aalen–Johansen cumulative-incidence estimator.
Aalen–Johansen cumulative-incidence estimator: , and ; updates use only event times with .
Statistics and estimators: a statistic is a measurable map from the observation space to a measurable target space; an estimator is a statistic with the estimand's target space.
A measurable function between measurable spaces: measurability means that the preimage of every target measurable set is measurable.
Arithmetic and lattice operations preserve measurability whenever they are defined: finite sums and products of real measurable functions are measurable wherever defined.
Proof
For every , the predicates , , , and each finite-valued cause-status predicate define Borel subsets of : the coordinate-comparison sets are closed in the Euclidean sample space, and status slices are Borel in the finite status space. Hence and are finite sums of measurable indicators by [F1] and [F4]. If is an event at , then its indicator is included in and in , so .
For each event record the ratio has finite range, since both counts lie in and the denominator is in ; each level set is a finite union of Borel count-level sets, so the ratio is measurable. The indicator selecting the first record at each distinct event time and the ordering of the at most event times are also determined by finitely many Borel equalities and inequalities. The updates in [F1] therefore form finite sums and products of measurable functions; [F4] makes every coordinate of the output vector measurable. By [F2] and [F3], this vector is a statistic, and step 1.1 proves its denominators are positive.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
None yet.
Sources
- Lu Tian and Richard Olshen, Competing Risk and Alternatives to Cox Model, Stanford University STAT331, slides 2–12
- Janne Pitkäniemi and Esa Läärä, Survival analysis with competing risks, Statistical Practice in Epidemiology using R, University of Tartu, slides 13–24
- 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