A decomposition of Fisher's information to inform sample size for developing fair and precise clinical prediction models -- Part 2: time-to-event outcomes

Richard D Riley; Gary S Collins; Lucinda Archer; Rebecca Whittle; Amardeep Legha; Laura Kirton; Paula Dhiman; Mohsen Sadatsafavi; Nicola J Adderley; Joseph Alderman; Glen P Martin; Joie Ensor

arXiv · 2501.14482

A decomposition of Fisher's information to inform sample size for developing fair and precise clinical prediction models -- Part 2: time-to-event outcomes

Richard D Riley·Gary S Collins·Lucinda Archer·Rebecca Whittle·Amardeep Legha·Laura Kirton·Paula Dhiman·Mohsen Sadatsafavi·Nicola J Adderley·Joseph Alderman·Glen P Martin·Joie Ensor

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Background: When developing a clinical prediction model using time-to-event data, previous research focuses on the sample size to minimise overfitting and precisely estimate the overall risk. However, instability of individual-level risk estimates may still be large. Methods: We propose a decomposition of Fisher's information matrix to examine and calculate the sample size required for developing a model that aims for precise and fair risk estimates. We propose a six-step process which can be used before data collection or when an existing dataset is available. Steps (1) to (5) require researchers to specify the overall risk in the target population at a key time-point of interest; an assumed pragmatic 'core model' in the form of an exponential regression model; the (anticipated) joint distribution of core predictors included in that model; and the distribution of any censoring. Results: We derive closed-form solutions that decompose the variance of an individual's estimated event rate into Fisher's unit information matrix, predictor values and total sample size; this allows researchers to calculate and examine uncertainty distributions around individual risk estimates and misclassification probabilities for specified sample sizes. We provide an illustrative example in breast cancer and emphasise the importance of clinical context, including risk thresholds for decision making, and examine fairness concerns for pre- and post-menopausal women. Lastly, in two empirical evaluations, we provide reassurance that uncertainty interval widths based on our approach are close to using more flexible models. Conclusions: Our approach allows users to identify the (target) sample size required to develop a prediction model for time-to-event outcomes, via the pmstabilityss module. It aims to facilitate models with improved trust, reliability and fairness in individual-level predictions.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Richard D Riley, Gary S Collins, Lucinda Archer, Rebecca Whittle, Amardeep Legha, Laura Kirton, Paula Dhiman, Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Nicola J Adderley, Joseph Alderman, Glen P Martin, Joie Ensor. 2025-01-24. A decomposition of Fisher's information to inform sample size for developing fair and precise clinical prediction models -- Part 2: time-to-event outcomes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.14482

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗