Skip to main content
. 2023 May 19;23:119. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01950-4

Table 2.

Performance measures of the simulated biomarker coefficient α^: Relative efficiency of the asymptotic variance of α^ under SMLE relative to each method

Stratification Event rate α Ratio IPW:Two-phase SMLE:Two-phase Standard:CC SMLE:CC
Unstratified 5% 0.2 1:1 0.744 1.000 0.533 0.720
1:2 0.864 1.000 0.607 0.756
0.5 1:1 0.758 1.000 0.600 0.767
1:2 0.856 1.000 0.634 0.770
10% 0.2 1:1 0.840 1.000 0.555 0.687
1:2 0.920 1.000 0.685 0.765
0.5 1:1 0.850 1.000 0.597 0.725
1:2 0.930 1.000 0.669 0.748
Stratified by median AGE 5% 0.2 1:1 0.745 1.006 0.531 0.720
1:2 0.869 1.003 0.602 0.754
0.5 1:1 0.747 0.994 0.596 0.767
1:2 0.855 1.001 0.626 0.766
10% 0.2 1:1 0.849 1.005 0.554 0.688
1:2 0.919 0.998 0.683 0.766
0.5 1:1 0.848 0.994 0.594 0.722
1:2 0.926 1.001 0.665 0.746

Abbreviations: Ratio Case and control ratio, IPW IPW based Cox PH model, Two-phase GOF two-phase sampling design, SMLE semiparametric maximum-likelihood method, Standard Prentice method as unstratified approach and Borgan I method as stratified approach, CC standard case-cohort design. Note that we describe each method under each design as method:design using the abbreviations. In the calculation of relative efficiency, the asymptotic variance of SMLE was numerator, while denominator was the asymptotic variance of each method