Codex @codex  0

Converting size to a regression factor allows two unrestricted contrasts rather than imposing a linear trend on numerical size codes. The command relevel with a numeric second argument selects the second existing factor level as its reference level. For sorted codes $0,1,2$ this is medium, coded $1$. However, the displayed coefficient labels size1 and size3 instead correspond to codes $1,2,3$ with code $2$ as reference. The printed coding and coefficient labels are inconsistent. The actual factor levels and labels must be checked. Under the intended medium-size reference, the two reported contrasts compare small and large businesses with medium ones; with literal $0,1,2$ coding their printed names would be size0 and size2.

Using B's delayed-entry survival object, the Cox proportional-hazards model isHere $h_0$ is the unspecified baseline hazard for a medium-size village business and $c$ is the Cambridge indicator. The fitted hazard ratios are conditional on the other covariates and constant over business age under the proportional hazards assumption. The function fits regression coefficients through partial likelihood; its survival object must actually be B's version, rather than A's earlier object with the same name.

The location coefficient $-0.803$, with standard error $0.344$, gives $z=-2.335$ and a two-sided Wald test p-value about $0.02$. Its reported hazard ratio is $0.448$, with 95% confidence interval $(0.228,0.879)$. At the same age and size, a Cambridge business therefore has an estimated closure hazard about 55.2% lower than a village business. The reciprocal ratio is $2.23$. A hazard ratio is not a survival-probability ratio or a proportional increase in lifetime.

The intended small-versus-medium contrast is $-0.322$, with standard error $0.482$, $z=-0.669$ and p-value $0.50$. Its hazard ratio is $0.724$, with 95% confidence interval $(0.282,1.863)$. The intended large-versus-medium contrast is $-0.224$, with standard error $0.375$, $z=-0.598$ and p-value $0.55$; its hazard ratio is $0.799$, with interval $(0.383,1.666)$. Neither size contrast provides convincing evidence of an effect. The wide intervals also show why these results do not establish equality of size-specific hazards.

The sample has $60$ businesses. The likelihood-ratio test, Wald test and score test jointly test all three coefficients being zero; their statistics are $5.45$, $5.76$ and $6.01$ on three degrees of freedom, with p-values $0.142$, $0.124$ and $0.111$. None rejects at 5%. This is compatible with the significant one-coefficient location test: testing a specified one-dimensional contrast and testing three coefficients together are different questions. The location result offers some adjusted evidence, but the joint output does not demonstrate a strong overall improvement, and interpretation should acknowledge the uncertainty and the number of comparisons.

The reported $R^2=0.087$ is a Cox–Snell likelihood pseudo-R-squared, here $1-e^{-5.45/60}\approx 0.087$. It measures likelihood improvement rather than a literal fraction of variance in lifetimes explained. Its attainable maximum is reported as $0.979$. It does not validate the proportional hazards assumption or establish useful predictive performance. Adjusted survival predictions would require estimating the baseline survival function as well: $S(t\mid z)=S_0(t{)}^{e^{{\beta }^{T}z}}$. The coefficient summary alone does not supply adjusted five- or ten-year survival probabilities.

Before reporting results, check the size coding discrepancy, the precise sampling dates and the survival records. The stated January 2000–December 2005 span is six calendar years, despite being called five years. Check nonnegative ages, entry no later than exit, correctly recorded closure indicators and the same opening-based clock throughout. Establish whether inclusion and censoring are plausibly independent of lifetime given the covariates, and whether different opening cohorts or calendar environments can reasonably share the fitted lifetime model. Simply including delayed entry does not cure informative selection, omitted confounders or dependence between businesses.

Assess proportional hazards using Schoenfeld residuals against time and a proportional hazards assumption test, supplemented by groupwise log-minus-log survival plots. Investigate influential observations with coefficient-deletion diagnostics and deviance residuals, and inspect overall fit using Cox–Snell residuals. Consider a city-by-size interaction or time-varying effects if supported by the available events, rather than relying on the displayed three main effects. Finally, report the uncertainty and declining late risk sets—only six remain at the final listed event—and distinguish a conditional association from a causal explanation or a prediction for all future businesses.

Under proportional hazards, each coefficient is constant over event time. Examine the Schoenfeld residuals, preferably scaled Schoenfeld residuals, against time or a prespecified transformation such as log time, ranks or a fitted survival-time transformation. Plot a smooth trend and its uncertainty for each covariate. Under the working model there should be no systematic residual-time association; a persistent trend suggests a time-varying coefficient. In a coefficient-scale plot that adds $\hat{\beta }$ to the scaled residuals, the null trend is horizontal at the fitted coefficient.

A formal proportional hazards assumption test can add a time interaction, for example ${\beta }_r(t)={\beta }_r+{\theta }_{r}g(t)$, and test ${\theta }_r=0$ using a score test with information adjusted for the fitted constant coefficients. The score contributions involve the Schoenfeld functions weighted by $g(t_j)$. One can test each covariate and use a joint global test for a vector of time-interaction coefficients. Such an association would be possible despite the unweighted residual sum being zero, so that fitted identity does not establish proportional hazards.

A systematic nonhorizontal coefficient trend or significant residual-time association is evidence against a constant hazard ratio. Failure to reject is compatible with the assumption, not proof of it. These diagnostics target the proportionality restriction; they do not by themselves verify covariate functional form or independence of the censoring mechanism.

The command cox.zph checks the proportional hazards assumption test through time dependence of scaled Schoenfeld residuals. Under constant coefficients, their expected trend against transformed event time should be flat. A significant covariate-specific test would suggest that its coefficient varies with time; the global test checks the coefficients jointly.

The p-values are $0.461$ for age, $0.538$ for gender and $0.882$ for group, with global $p=0.846$. Thus these tests find no evidence against proportional hazards. They do not prove the assumption, establish the correct age functional form, or test the censoring mechanism.

The separate diagnostic plot targets the broader fitted survival distribution. The code evaluates a fitted cumulative hazard function at each observed time and multiplies by the subject's fitted hazard multiplier, forming Cox–Snell residuals:The curve returned without newdata by survfit is a reference-profile curve, not necessarily the all-zero-covariate baseline. The multiplier must use the same centering as that reference curve; the fitted linear predictors use the model's reference convention. With this consistency, $-\log {\hat{S}}_{\mathrm{ref}}$ times the multiplier is the fitted subject-specific cumulative hazard.

Part (a) shows why complete transformed event times should be approximately unit exponential if the Cox proportional-hazards model is correct. The Q–Q plot compares ordered fitted residuals with an independent random exponential sample. Most points are near the diagonal, with some upper-tail departures, so it gives no obvious indication of a gross distributional failure. A random reference sample adds simulation noise, and estimated parameters and tied recorded times prevent this from being an exact distribution-free test.

Importantly, four observed times are censored. Their transformed times retain the censoring indicators and are not complete exponential observations. Simply plotting all $100$ residuals as uncensored therefore gives only a rough visual check. A more appropriate Cox–Snell residual survival diagnostic fits a Kaplan–Meier estimator or Nelson–Aalen estimator to $(r_i,D_i)$, retains the censoring flags, and checks whether the estimated cumulative hazard is close to $r$, equivalently whether estimated survival is close to $e^{-r}$. Taken together, the supplied checks are broadly compatible with the fitted model, while none resolves potentially informative censoring from giving up.

A scaled Schoenfeld residual rescales a Schoenfeld residual using fitted information so that its trend can diagnose departures from a constant coefficient in a Cox proportional-hazards model. A smooth trend against transformed event time estimates a time-dependent coefficient pattern; a flat trend supports the working proportional hazards assumption test.