Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2018 / iii / Paper 207 / 5

Define the event counting process and at-risk process byUnder a common hazard function and independent censoring, the conditional event rate is $Y(u)h(u)$. Equivalently, the counting-process compensator satisfies $\mathbb{E}[dN(u)\mid {\mathcal{F}}_{u-}]=Y(u)dH(u)$. Estimate a cumulative hazard increment by the observed event increment divided by the current risk set:With no ties, $dN$ has mass $v_i$ at $x_i$, and $Y(x_i)={\sum }_{j:x_j\ge x_i}1$. Thus the Nelson–Aalen estimator isOnly event times contribute, so no empty risk set is divided into an event count. Right-censored observations contribute time to the risk sets, but no event increment.

Let $R_i=\{j:x_j\ge x_i\}$ be the risk set at an observed event time $x_i$. In the Cox proportional-hazards model, conditional on one member of this set failing then and on the preceding history, the probability that it is individual $i$ isThe baseline hazard cancels. Multiplying these conditional contributions gives the Cox partial likelihoodThe no-ties assumption avoids the need for a tied-event approximation. This construction assumes independent censoring conditional on the modelled covariates. The printed phrase calling $z$ a scalar parameter is read as a scalar observed covariate $z_i$; $\beta$ is the unknown regression parameter.

Taking logarithms of the Cox partial likelihood givesDifferentiate each term, using the chain rule for the logarithm:This score function is the sum over failures of the observed covariate minus its current risk-weighted mean. Define that mean as ${\overline{z}}_{\beta }(x_i)$; observations with $v_i=0$ have no direct event term, although they occur in the relevant risk sets.

Within the risk set $R_i$, the Cox proportional-hazards model makes the conditional failure probabilities proportional to $e^{\beta z_j}$. ThusThe score function sums observed minus expected covariates at event times. At a finite interior maximum of the Cox partial likelihood,The balance holds in aggregate, not separately at every event. The log partial likelihood is concave becauseWhen there is informative covariate variation in the risk sets, this gives a unique finite solution if it exists. A completely separated event pattern can instead have its maximum only as $\beta \to \pm \infty$; the question's finite $\hat{\beta }$ implicitly excludes that case.

In the Cox proportional-hazards model, replace the number at risk in the Nelson–Aalen estimator by the sum of relative hazards:The total event counting process has conditional rate $W_{\beta }(u)h_0(u)$, so the estimated baseline hazard increment is $dN(u)/W_{\hat{\beta }}(u)$. Integrating gives the Breslow estimatorWhen $\hat{\beta }=0$, all relative hazards are 1 and this reduces to the Nelson–Aalen estimator. The denominator is positive at each observed event time.

In the martingale residual$v_i$ is the observed event count up to the end of the individual's follow-up: 1 for a recorded event and 0 for right censoring. The second term is the fitted counting-process compensator, obtained by integrating that individual's fitted hazard function while they remain at risk:Thus the residual is observed events minus the fitted cumulative event intensity over follow-up. The fitted intensity is not an event probability and can exceed 1. Positive values indicate more events than predicted over that observed exposure; negative values indicate fewer. A right-censored individual has a nonpositive residual. With true model parameters and independent censoring, the underlying observed-minus-compensator process is a martingale; fitted terminal residuals are not independent identically distributed errors.

Fit the Cox proportional-hazards model with the other explanatory variables, initially omitting the variable $z$ whose form is being assessed, and plot the resulting martingale residuals against $z$. Add a smooth trend, for example using a cubic spline or a local smoother. A systematic pattern indicates that $z$ affects the hazard function; the shape helps suggest a linear term, a transformation, or a nonlinear spline term in the log hazard.

Refit with the proposed form and inspect martingale residuals against $z$ again. Under an adequate functional form, their conditional mean should have no systematic trend, allowing for model fitting and the other covariates. Compare plausible alternative forms using the partial likelihood and suitable model checks.

Use the smoothed pattern to assess the covariate's functional form, rather than treating these residuals as normal regression errors. Martingale residuals are asymmetric, bounded above by 1, and can be arbitrarily negative; the raw residual plot can therefore be misleading without smoothing. This diagnostic concerns the covariate form, and does not by itself test the proportional hazards assumption.

Insert the Breslow estimator into the fitted cumulative intensities and interchange the finite sums:Every observed event contributes exactly one after summing its fitted contribution over its risk set. ThereforeThis identity is algebraic and holds for any finite coefficient used consistently in the relative hazards and the Breslow estimator; it does not require the score equation to be solved exactly. It can fail if the baseline hazard is estimated or smoothed by a different procedure.