Schoenfled Residua test shows proportionality hazard assumptions holds but Kaplan-Meier plots intersect





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







1












$begingroup$


"If Kaplan-Meier plots cross each other then proportional hazard assumption does not hold". The issue I am facing is that I got the Kaplam-Meier plot(bleow). We can clearly see that it is overlapping.
But when I plot the Schoenfled residual plots, it suggests otherwise because the black solid line is flat(image below). Also the p-values(below) for Schoenfled residual plots are not significant, suggesting that proportional hazard assumption holds
enter image description hereenter image description here




ftest <- cox.zph(fitcox)
ftest
p
as.factor(C)2 0.945
as.factor(C)3 0.922
as.factor(C)4 0.717
GLOBAL 0.915




One may argue that the three hazard ratios are calculated w.r.t. the red plot. Red plot does not intersect the blue and black plots. So it is understandable that proportional hazard assumption holds.
But red plot does intersect the green one, although only a little...Is that not enough to violate the proportional hazard assumption?






cox-model kaplan-meier proportional-hazards schoenfeld-residuals







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you cannot reject the null hypothesis, it does not mean that it is true.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael M
    15 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    This reasoning accounts for the p-value. What about the Schoenfled residual plots being flat....
    $endgroup$
    – Omar Rafique
    13 hours ago


















1












$begingroup$


"If Kaplan-Meier plots cross each other then proportional hazard assumption does not hold". The issue I am facing is that I got the Kaplam-Meier plot(bleow). We can clearly see that it is overlapping.
But when I plot the Schoenfled residual plots, it suggests otherwise because the black solid line is flat(image below). Also the p-values(below) for Schoenfled residual plots are not significant, suggesting that proportional hazard assumption holds
enter image description hereenter image description here




ftest <- cox.zph(fitcox)
ftest
p
as.factor(C)2 0.945
as.factor(C)3 0.922
as.factor(C)4 0.717
GLOBAL 0.915




One may argue that the three hazard ratios are calculated w.r.t. the red plot. Red plot does not intersect the blue and black plots. So it is understandable that proportional hazard assumption holds.
But red plot does intersect the green one, although only a little...Is that not enough to violate the proportional hazard assumption?






cox-model kaplan-meier proportional-hazards schoenfeld-residuals







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you cannot reject the null hypothesis, it does not mean that it is true.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael M
    15 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    This reasoning accounts for the p-value. What about the Schoenfled residual plots being flat....
    $endgroup$
    – Omar Rafique
    13 hours ago














1












1








1


1



$begingroup$


"If Kaplan-Meier plots cross each other then proportional hazard assumption does not hold". The issue I am facing is that I got the Kaplam-Meier plot(bleow). We can clearly see that it is overlapping.
But when I plot the Schoenfled residual plots, it suggests otherwise because the black solid line is flat(image below). Also the p-values(below) for Schoenfled residual plots are not significant, suggesting that proportional hazard assumption holds
enter image description hereenter image description here




ftest <- cox.zph(fitcox)
ftest
p
as.factor(C)2 0.945
as.factor(C)3 0.922
as.factor(C)4 0.717
GLOBAL 0.915




One may argue that the three hazard ratios are calculated w.r.t. the red plot. Red plot does not intersect the blue and black plots. So it is understandable that proportional hazard assumption holds.
But red plot does intersect the green one, although only a little...Is that not enough to violate the proportional hazard assumption?






cox-model kaplan-meier proportional-hazards schoenfeld-residuals







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




"If Kaplan-Meier plots cross each other then proportional hazard assumption does not hold". The issue I am facing is that I got the Kaplam-Meier plot(bleow). We can clearly see that it is overlapping.
But when I plot the Schoenfled residual plots, it suggests otherwise because the black solid line is flat(image below). Also the p-values(below) for Schoenfled residual plots are not significant, suggesting that proportional hazard assumption holds
enter image description hereenter image description here




ftest <- cox.zph(fitcox)
ftest
p
as.factor(C)2 0.945
as.factor(C)3 0.922
as.factor(C)4 0.717
GLOBAL 0.915




One may argue that the three hazard ratios are calculated w.r.t. the red plot. Red plot does not intersect the blue and black plots. So it is understandable that proportional hazard assumption holds.
But red plot does intersect the green one, although only a little...Is that not enough to violate the proportional hazard assumption?






cox-model kaplan-meier proportional-hazards schoenfeld-residuals




cox-model kaplan-meier proportional-hazards schoenfeld-residuals






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 16 hours ago







Omar Rafique

















asked 16 hours ago









Omar RafiqueOmar Rafique

456




456








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you cannot reject the null hypothesis, it does not mean that it is true.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael M
    15 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    This reasoning accounts for the p-value. What about the Schoenfled residual plots being flat....
    $endgroup$
    – Omar Rafique
    13 hours ago














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you cannot reject the null hypothesis, it does not mean that it is true.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael M
    15 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    This reasoning accounts for the p-value. What about the Schoenfled residual plots being flat....
    $endgroup$
    – Omar Rafique
    13 hours ago








2




2




$begingroup$
If you cannot reject the null hypothesis, it does not mean that it is true.
$endgroup$
– Michael M
15 hours ago






$begingroup$
If you cannot reject the null hypothesis, it does not mean that it is true.
$endgroup$
– Michael M
15 hours ago














$begingroup$
This reasoning accounts for the p-value. What about the Schoenfled residual plots being flat....
$endgroup$
– Omar Rafique
13 hours ago




$begingroup$
This reasoning accounts for the p-value. What about the Schoenfled residual plots being flat....
$endgroup$
– Omar Rafique
13 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

It’s not clear that the overlaps among the K-M curves are so bad. There might be some crossing at very early times and curves come close to each other at some later times but that type of variability might not be inconsistent with proportional hazards.



You will have to use your judgement about the underlying subject matter to decide whether this is close enough to proportional hazards for your purposes. You can’t strictly prove that proportional hazards hold so the judgement is whether there is enough evidence against them to matter for your application.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    You are comparing descriptive data (kaplan meier lines are crossing) with inference test (schoenfeld test) which in case of a not significant test usually seem to contradict because there is usually some descriptive difference. Imagine someone checking for normal distribution: a not significant Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (= inference test) doesn't mean that the QQ plot (= descriptive data) follows perfectly a normal distribution. Same is true for a not significant t-test where means are not exactly the same. And so on. And as always with tests of significance: they depend on sample size.



    In this example I would say that the hazards are not perfectly proportional which can be seen in the kaplan meier plots. But this is not a significant violation of the assumption judged by the schoenfeld test. The problem may arise if one strictly follows the scentence you quoted "If Kaplan-Meier plots cross each other then proportional hazard assumption does not hold" which I would question because sometimes there may be "a little" scrossing like here what not means that proportional assumption must be wrong. If this were true there would be no need for a significance test like the schoenfeld test.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$














      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "65"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f401515%2fschoenfled-residua-test-shows-proportionality-hazard-assumptions-holds-but-kapla%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      2












      $begingroup$

      It’s not clear that the overlaps among the K-M curves are so bad. There might be some crossing at very early times and curves come close to each other at some later times but that type of variability might not be inconsistent with proportional hazards.



      You will have to use your judgement about the underlying subject matter to decide whether this is close enough to proportional hazards for your purposes. You can’t strictly prove that proportional hazards hold so the judgement is whether there is enough evidence against them to matter for your application.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        2












        $begingroup$

        It’s not clear that the overlaps among the K-M curves are so bad. There might be some crossing at very early times and curves come close to each other at some later times but that type of variability might not be inconsistent with proportional hazards.



        You will have to use your judgement about the underlying subject matter to decide whether this is close enough to proportional hazards for your purposes. You can’t strictly prove that proportional hazards hold so the judgement is whether there is enough evidence against them to matter for your application.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          It’s not clear that the overlaps among the K-M curves are so bad. There might be some crossing at very early times and curves come close to each other at some later times but that type of variability might not be inconsistent with proportional hazards.



          You will have to use your judgement about the underlying subject matter to decide whether this is close enough to proportional hazards for your purposes. You can’t strictly prove that proportional hazards hold so the judgement is whether there is enough evidence against them to matter for your application.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          It’s not clear that the overlaps among the K-M curves are so bad. There might be some crossing at very early times and curves come close to each other at some later times but that type of variability might not be inconsistent with proportional hazards.



          You will have to use your judgement about the underlying subject matter to decide whether this is close enough to proportional hazards for your purposes. You can’t strictly prove that proportional hazards hold so the judgement is whether there is enough evidence against them to matter for your application.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 14 hours ago









          EdMEdM

          22.2k23496




          22.2k23496

























              2












              $begingroup$

              You are comparing descriptive data (kaplan meier lines are crossing) with inference test (schoenfeld test) which in case of a not significant test usually seem to contradict because there is usually some descriptive difference. Imagine someone checking for normal distribution: a not significant Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (= inference test) doesn't mean that the QQ plot (= descriptive data) follows perfectly a normal distribution. Same is true for a not significant t-test where means are not exactly the same. And so on. And as always with tests of significance: they depend on sample size.



              In this example I would say that the hazards are not perfectly proportional which can be seen in the kaplan meier plots. But this is not a significant violation of the assumption judged by the schoenfeld test. The problem may arise if one strictly follows the scentence you quoted "If Kaplan-Meier plots cross each other then proportional hazard assumption does not hold" which I would question because sometimes there may be "a little" scrossing like here what not means that proportional assumption must be wrong. If this were true there would be no need for a significance test like the schoenfeld test.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                2












                $begingroup$

                You are comparing descriptive data (kaplan meier lines are crossing) with inference test (schoenfeld test) which in case of a not significant test usually seem to contradict because there is usually some descriptive difference. Imagine someone checking for normal distribution: a not significant Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (= inference test) doesn't mean that the QQ plot (= descriptive data) follows perfectly a normal distribution. Same is true for a not significant t-test where means are not exactly the same. And so on. And as always with tests of significance: they depend on sample size.



                In this example I would say that the hazards are not perfectly proportional which can be seen in the kaplan meier plots. But this is not a significant violation of the assumption judged by the schoenfeld test. The problem may arise if one strictly follows the scentence you quoted "If Kaplan-Meier plots cross each other then proportional hazard assumption does not hold" which I would question because sometimes there may be "a little" scrossing like here what not means that proportional assumption must be wrong. If this were true there would be no need for a significance test like the schoenfeld test.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  You are comparing descriptive data (kaplan meier lines are crossing) with inference test (schoenfeld test) which in case of a not significant test usually seem to contradict because there is usually some descriptive difference. Imagine someone checking for normal distribution: a not significant Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (= inference test) doesn't mean that the QQ plot (= descriptive data) follows perfectly a normal distribution. Same is true for a not significant t-test where means are not exactly the same. And so on. And as always with tests of significance: they depend on sample size.



                  In this example I would say that the hazards are not perfectly proportional which can be seen in the kaplan meier plots. But this is not a significant violation of the assumption judged by the schoenfeld test. The problem may arise if one strictly follows the scentence you quoted "If Kaplan-Meier plots cross each other then proportional hazard assumption does not hold" which I would question because sometimes there may be "a little" scrossing like here what not means that proportional assumption must be wrong. If this were true there would be no need for a significance test like the schoenfeld test.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  You are comparing descriptive data (kaplan meier lines are crossing) with inference test (schoenfeld test) which in case of a not significant test usually seem to contradict because there is usually some descriptive difference. Imagine someone checking for normal distribution: a not significant Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (= inference test) doesn't mean that the QQ plot (= descriptive data) follows perfectly a normal distribution. Same is true for a not significant t-test where means are not exactly the same. And so on. And as always with tests of significance: they depend on sample size.



                  In this example I would say that the hazards are not perfectly proportional which can be seen in the kaplan meier plots. But this is not a significant violation of the assumption judged by the schoenfeld test. The problem may arise if one strictly follows the scentence you quoted "If Kaplan-Meier plots cross each other then proportional hazard assumption does not hold" which I would question because sometimes there may be "a little" scrossing like here what not means that proportional assumption must be wrong. If this were true there would be no need for a significance test like the schoenfeld test.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited 14 hours ago

























                  answered 14 hours ago









                  igoR87igoR87

                  1368




                  1368






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f401515%2fschoenfled-residua-test-shows-proportionality-hazard-assumptions-holds-but-kapla%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

                      Image
                      .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75 ...
                      Read more

                      Berlina muro

                      Image
                      La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l...
                      Read more

                      Berlina aerponto

                      Image
                      Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa...
                      Read more