A Flexible Alternative to the Cox Proportional Hazards Model for Assessing the Prognostic Accuracy of Hospice Patient Survival

Branko Miladinovic; Ambuj Kumar; Rahul Mhaskar; Sehwan Kim; Ronald Schonwetter; Benjamin Djulbegovic

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047804

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

A Flexible Alternative to the Cox Proportional Hazards Model for Assessing the Prognostic Accuracy of Hospice Patient Survival

Branko Miladinovic ,

* E-mail: bmiladin@health.usf.edu

Affiliation Center for Evidence Based Medicine and Health Outcomes Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States of America
⨯
Ambuj Kumar,

Affiliation Center for Evidence Based Medicine and Health Outcomes Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States of America
⨯
Rahul Mhaskar,

Affiliation Center for Evidence Based Medicine and Health Outcomes Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States of America
⨯
Sehwan Kim,

Affiliation HPC Healthcare, Temple Terrace, Florida, United States of America
⨯
Ronald Schonwetter,

Affiliation HPC Healthcare, Temple Terrace, Florida, United States of America
⨯
Benjamin Djulbegovic

Affiliations Center for Evidence Based Medicine and Health Outcomes Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States of America, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, United States of America
⨯

A Flexible Alternative to the Cox Proportional Hazards Model for Assessing the Prognostic Accuracy of Hospice Patient Survival

Branko Miladinovic,
Ambuj Kumar,
Rahul Mhaskar,
Sehwan Kim,
Ronald Schonwetter,
Benjamin Djulbegovic

Published: October 17, 2012
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047804

Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Publisher's Note: Error in Text

Posted by PLOS_ONE_Group on 23 Apr 2013 at 21:50 GMT

The first sentence of the last paragraph of the Introduction had an error in typesetting. The sentence should have ended with links to References 11, 14, and 18.

No competing interests declared.

Subject Areas
?

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.
We want your feedback. Do these Subject Areas make sense for this article? Click the target next to the incorrect Subject Area and let us know. Thanks for your help!

Gastrointestinal cancers
Is the Subject Area "Gastrointestinal cancers" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Head and neck cancers
Is the Subject Area "Head and neck cancers" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Neurological tumors
Is the Subject Area "Neurological tumors" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Cancer detection and diagnosis
Is the Subject Area "Cancer detection and diagnosis" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Prognosis
Is the Subject Area "Prognosis" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Cancer risk factors
Is the Subject Area "Cancer risk factors" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Forecasting
Is the Subject Area "Forecasting" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Statistical models
Is the Subject Area "Statistical models" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.

A Flexible Alternative to the Cox Proportional Hazards Model for Assessing the Prognostic Accuracy of Hospice Patient Survival

A Flexible Alternative to the Cox Proportional Hazards Model for Assessing the Prognostic Accuracy of Hospice Patient Survival

Reader Comments

Post Your Discussion Comment

Why should this posting be reviewed?

Thank You!

Publisher's Note: Error in Text

Posted by PLOS_ONE_Group on 23 Apr 2013 at 21:50 GMT