. 2016 Dec 29;27(8):2359–2373. doi: 10.1177/0962280216680245

Table 3.

Estimated univariate concordance indices and model coefficients from example.

	Grade	HER2	Nodes	Ki67	ER
(a) Binary predictor
2-sample	0.57	0.61	0.59	0.55	0.53
Harrell	0.59	0.57	0.63	0.61	0.56
Uno	0.58	0.57	0.63	0.58	0.56
PH	0.57	0.54	0.60	0.59	0.56
Pareto	0.53	*	*	0.53*
PH $\hat{β}$ (LR-χ²)	0.9 (24.9)	1.1 (23.1)	1.2 (47.5)	0.8 (21.6)	−0.5 (7.8)
Pareto $\hat{β}$ (LR-χ²)	1.3 (27.0)	*	*	1.4 (25.2)*
$\hat{γ}$ (LR-χ²)	4.0 (2.1)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	8.7 (3.6)	0.0 (0.0)
(b) Continuous predictor
Harrell			0.65	0.64	0.57
Uno			0.64	0.62	0.58
PH			0.61	0.63	0.57
Pareto			*	0.55	0.54
PH $\hat{β}$ (LR-χ²)			1.0 (72.7)	0.4 (31.8)	−0.2 (11.5)
Pareto $\hat{β}$ (LR-χ²)			*	0.7 (35.2)	−0.2 (12.0)
$\hat{γ}$ (LR-χ²)			0.0 (0.0)	6.6 (3.5)	2.8 (0.4)

PH: using proportional-hazards assumption and (10); Grade: moderate or worse; HER2: positive; Nodes: lymph node positive or number of nodes (ordinal: 0, 1–3, > 4); Ki67: above median or continuous marker; ER: oestrogen-receptor score above median or continuous; LR-χ²: likelihood-ratio statistic; $\hat{β}$ : estimated regression coefficient for predictor; * indicates when Pareto model fit was proportional hazards.