Closed mattwarkentin closed 1 year ago
I think the relevant lines in check_predict()
are at the following lines and could be changed to check_arg_gteq(...)
:
https://github.com/ropensci/aorsf/blob/c2840713f1a1c5f7d767881a1afed25203ca7456/R/check.R#L1575-L1577
Hi, @mattwarkentin. Thanks for trying out aorsf
!
I think it makes sense to return 0, 1, and 0 when pred_type is
'risk'
,'surv'
, and'chf'
, respectively. Do you agree?
This makes sense to me. I think you are correct regarding the modification of check_predict()
. I will look into it now.
It looks like the fix was just as simple as you thought. The dev version should now allow pred_horizon = 0
.
Thank you!
Awesome! Thanks for addressing this so quickly.
Hey @bcjaeger,
I am just playing around with this package. It's great. But I am wondering whether it makes sense for
predict.orsf_fit()
to actually return predictions instead of throwing an error whenpred_horizon = 0
. I think it makes sense to return 0, 1, and 0 whenpred_type
is'risk'
,'surv'
, and'chf'
, respectively. Do you agree?It may seem senseless to request predictions at time zero, but ,as an example, I was trying to make risk or survival curves by making predictions from time zero to time t at equally-spaced intervals, and noted the error. I think the values suggested above are both statistically valid and would make the predict function a little friendlier.
For comparison, I contributed the
predict.flexsurvreg()
function to the{flexsurv}
package and predictions attime = 0
are valid and return the values suggested above.