Talk:Kaplan–Meier estimator
| WikiProject Statistics | |||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-Class) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||
| Mathematics rating: | Start Class | Mid Priority | Field: Probability and statistics |
|
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. |
|||
[edit] Copyright vio?
The image shows 2 curves that are identical to the figure on page 126 of First Aid for the USMLE Step 2 CK, 6th edition, by Le, Bushan, and Skapik. The text labels have been changed and color added, but the curves are exactly the same--even the tick marks correspond perfectly.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.146.59 (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The example of gene profiles in the introduction is highly unrealistic. A medical example would typically be the comparison of different treatments for disease Sboehringer 08:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This entry needs more examples, possibly a sample calculation, and a review of the citation history of the original article. I can do it eventually but if anyone else is game, feel free...this is an important entry, so I think a little tutorial on how to do a KM estimation is in order. 63.250.186.17 16:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Theoriste
I am very unhappy with the definition of the product-limit estimator on this page. On the positive side, the definition uses fairly minimal notation, which is pretty clever (and I assume is the point).
On the negative side, this definition is undefined for t < t(1). That is, the survivor rate is obviously 100% before any subject has died, but the product limit expression is always less than 100% (since N/(N+1) is always less than 1). Perhaps more importantly, this definition has no obvious generalization to the case with right censoring. I much prefer definitions like this one, which I think are more standard.
I would just have edited the page, but I'm lazy, and I'm also very curious about where the definition on this page came from. Unless there are objections, I'm going to go ahead and change it. Ragout 04:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
---
Surely in the exampled d_2 = 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.38.9 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the reference to the Costella paper is necessary and suggest removing it.John Lawrence (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The reference to the Costella paper is at best orthogonal. I'm removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.119.68 (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
