Skip to content

Update Section 13.2 in the intial survival analysis example#884

Merged
be-marc merged 15 commits intomlr-org:mainfrom
BjarkeHautop:main
Feb 5, 2026
Merged

Update Section 13.2 in the intial survival analysis example#884
be-marc merged 15 commits intomlr-org:mainfrom
BjarkeHautop:main

Conversation

@BjarkeHautop
Copy link
Contributor

This fixes issue #883. Updated the text to clarify that censoring in this section refers to right censoring, and updated the initial example to a better one.

@RaphaelS1
Copy link
Contributor

RaphaelS1 commented Jul 13, 2025

Thanks for the PR and the suggestion!

Right-censoring occurs because an observation stops being observed in a study period either due to: the study period ending (administrative censoring) or some other random event (if non-random then use competing risks). What you're referring to is specifically administrative censoring.

The flaw in the original is that the example in parentheses says "(e.g., the marathon runner gives up and does not finish the race)", I agree this is a competing risk (though is still technically right-censoring, CR is just the better modelling paradigm, though technically the example is correct). Therefore a better solution is to update that to "(e.g., the marathon runner trips and sprains their ankle") which is a purely random event. Their hypothetical finish time, $Y$, is unobserved but one could still attempt to predicting this using the standard single-event framework (the purpose of survival analysis).

I'm not adverse to a new example but the example should be general right-censoring not some specific sub-field.

@bblodfon
Copy link
Contributor

@BjarkeHautop thanks for the suggestion and PR! I edited a bit further the text adding the distinction between random and administrative censoring (+ better examples) which I think is important (as Raphael argued also above).

@larskotthoff
Copy link
Member

That sounds like everybody is ok with this PR now? Please confirm before I merge.

@bblodfon
Copy link
Contributor

bblodfon commented Jul 22, 2025

@larskotthoff good to merge, I refined it as much as I could!

@bblodfon
Copy link
Contributor

bblodfon commented Oct 9, 2025

@be-marc I think this should be good to merge - some account problem seesm to be the failure here, probably because this is from a fork?

@be-marc be-marc merged commit aa6eb02 into mlr-org:main Feb 5, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants