Closed pdeninis closed 1 year ago
Hey @pdeninis will that get fixed once this PR is merged? https://github.com/kassambara/survminer/pull/535 that reflects https://github.com/kassambara/survminer/pull/534 this issue?
Hi, Marcin.
Sorry, I was unaware that the issue had already been signaled. As I wrote in my post, removing the d multiplier makes the graph identical to the Therneau's one. I read the comments in https://github.com/kassambara/survminer/issues/534#issuecomment-860125015 and they are consistent with my knowledge.
I do not know which fix have you prefigured, but I suppose it substantively makes the graph to look identical to that of Therenau, and this solves the problem I reported.
Hi, Marcin.
Sorry, I was unaware that the issue had already been signaled. As I wrote in my post, removing the d multiplier makes the graph identical to the Therneau's one. I read the comments in #534 (comment) https://github.com/kassambara/survminer/issues/534#issuecomment-860125015 and they are consistent with my knowledge.
I do not know which fix have you prefigured, but I suppose it substantively makes the graph to look identical to that of Therenau, and this solves the problem I reported.
Il giorno lun 16 mag 2022 alle ore 15:13 Marcin Kosiński < @.***> ha scritto:
Hey @pdeninis https://github.com/pdeninis will that get fixed once this PR is merged? #535 https://github.com/kassambara/survminer/pull/535 that reflects #534 https://github.com/kassambara/survminer/issues/534 this issue?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/kassambara/survminer/issues/576#issuecomment-1127657549, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIO4PDVVI4XC7WQ35S3QUD3VKJCY5ANCNFSM5RW63ZKA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
fixed in #535
Expected behavior
Actual behavior
With the 0.4.9 version of survminer, the line:
dev.new(); survminer:::ggcoxzph(cox.zph(fnewL), df=3)
prints the following plot:
This link https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/560975/how-to-interpret-schoenfield-residual-plot suggests a mistake could be present in the function at the line:
seval <- d * ((pmat %*% xtx) * pmat) %*% rep(1, df)
By removing the d factor (the string "d*") as explained in the link, the following plot is printed:
Is the actual SE formula wrong? Maybe it has some other meaning? Have you some reference for it? I believe it deserves a check.
PDN
Steps to reproduce the problem
session_info()