Under the null hypothesis of equal survival distributions, the two groups have the same event hazard. Conditional on the current risk set and one event, the event is in A with probability and in B with probability . Consequently, whenever both groups are represented,Thus a weighted sum of differences in estimated hazard increments is centered under the null. Its sign reflects which group has more events relative to its numbers at risk. The weights may depend on event time and the preceding risk sets, but must not be chosen after seeing which group failed; otherwise this conditional-centering argument fails. Positive weights emphasize selected time regions without reversing an increment's direction. Such tests can have weak power against crossing hazards whose positive and negative contributions cancel.
Let , so . Its conditional null variance is . Since the unweighted hazard difference is , the conditional variance of its weighted contribution is . Successive centered contributions form martingale differences. Their variance contributions add, providing a variance standardization for the test.
With the specified log-rank weight, put . ThenTherefore the displayed sum is exactly the unstandardized log-rank statisticIts two-sided large-sample log-rank test uses when and information is sufficient. If one group has no remaining subjects at some event time, its event contributes zero information. Use the final observed-minus-expected expression to define the contribution as zero; the original divided expression has an undefined and the log-rank weight becomes zero there. Thus strict positivity of the proposed weights implicitly restricts the comparison to event times when both groups are at risk. Independent censoring and a valid conditional common-hazard model are required throughout.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.