When a model's predicted number of events within any time interval is similar to the observed number, it is called well-calibrated. A survival model's calibration can be measured using, for instance, distributional calibration (D-CALIBRATION) [Haider et al., 2020] which computes the squared difference between the observed and predicted number of events within different time intervals. Classically, calibration is addressed in post-training analysis. We develop explicit calibration (X-CAL), which turns D-CALIBRATION into a differentiable objective that can be used in survival modeling alongside maximum likelihood estimation and other objectives. X-CAL allows us to directly optimize calibration and strike a desired trade-off between predictive power and calibration. In our experiments, we fit a variety of shallow and deep models on simulated data, a survival dataset based on MNIST, on length-of-stay prediction using MIMIC-III data, and on brain cancer data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. We show that the models we study can be miscalibrated. We give experimental evidence on these datasets that X-CAL improves D-CALIBRATION without a large decrease in concordance or likelihood.

When a model's predicted number of events within any time interval is similar to the observed number, it is called well-calibrated. A survival model's calibration can be measured using, for instance, distributional calibration (D-CALIBRATION) [Haider et al., 2020] which computes the squared difference between the observed and predicted number of events within different time intervals. Classically, calibration is addressed in post-training analysis. We develop explicit calibration (X-CAL), which turns D-CALIBRATION into a differentiable objective that can be used in survival modeling alongside maximum likelihood estimation and other objectives. X-CAL allows us to directly optimize calibration and strike a desired trade-off between predictive power and calibration.

Weaknesses: Any kind of predictive model, and especially deep neural networks, will tend to overfit to the training set, generally causing predictions on a separate test set to be too extreme (shrinkage, or calibration slope of less than 1). The authors' X-cal procedure ensures good calibration on the training set. But that could result in disappointing calibration when applied to the test set. It seems to me that one would want a procedure to maximize calibration on a validation set, not the training set. That would then lead to good calibration on the separate test set.

When a model's predicted number of events within any time interval is similar to the observed number, it is called well-calibrated. A survival model's calibration can be measured using, for instance, distributional calibration (D-CALIBRATION) [Haider et al., 2020] which computes the squared difference between the observed and predicted number of events within different time intervals. Classically, calibration is addressed in post-training analysis. We develop explicit calibration (X-CAL), which turns D-CALIBRATION into a differentiable objective that can be used in survival modeling alongside maximum likelihood estimation and other objectives. X-CAL allows us to directly optimize calibration and strike a desired trade-off between predictive power and calibration.

Survival analysis is the problem of estimating probability distributions for future event times, which can be seen as a problem in uncertainty quantification. Although there are fundamental theories on strictly proper scoring rules for uncertainty quantification, little is known about those for survival analysis. In this paper, we investigate extensions of four major strictly proper scoring rules for survival analysis and we prove that these extensions are proper under certain conditions, which arise from the discretization of the estimation of probability distributions. We also compare the estimation performances of these extended scoring rules by using real datasets, and the extensions of the logarithmic score and the Brier score performed the best.

An accurate model of a patient's individual survival distribution can help determine the appropriate treatment for terminal patients. Unfortunately, risk scores (e.g., from Cox Proportional Hazard models) do not provide survival probabilities, single-time probability models (e.g., the Gail model, predicting 5 year probability) only provide for a single time point, and standard Kaplan-Meier survival curves provide only population averages for a large class of patients meaning they are not specific to individual patients. This motivates an alternative class of tools that can learn a model which provides an individual survival distribution which gives survival probabilities across all times - such as extensions to the Cox model, Accelerated Failure Time, an extension to Random Survival Forests, and Multi-Task Logistic Regression. This paper first motivates such "individual survival distribution" (ISD) models, and explains how they differ from standard models. It then discusses ways to evaluate such models - namely Concordance, 1-Calibration, Brier score, and various versions of L1-loss - and then motivates and defines a novel approach "D-Calibration", which determines whether a model's probability estimates are meaningful. We also discuss how these measures differ, and use them to evaluate several ISD prediction tools, over a range of survival datasets.