Path: news.mathworks.com!not-for-mail
From: "Steven Lord" <slord@mathworks.com>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: coxphfit in Statistics toolbox
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:31:57 -0400
Organization: The MathWorks, Inc.
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <fvf8kt$810$1@fred.mathworks.com>
References: <fv5ko0$m01$1@fred.mathworks.com> <fv7bk0$82h$1@fred.mathworks.com> <fvcubk$men$1@fred.mathworks.com>
Reply-To: "Steven Lord" <slord@mathworks.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lords.dhcp.mathworks.com
X-Trace: fred.mathworks.com 1209738717 8224 144.212.105.187 (2 May 2008 14:31:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@mathworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 14:31:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Xref: news.mathworks.com comp.soft-sys.matlab:466285




"Jerry " <mricad@yahoo.no000spppam.com> wrote in message 
news:fvcubk$men$1@fred.mathworks.com...
>> Jerry, it really is like that.  In MATLAB, 1 is "true,"
> and since the
>> argument is called "censoring" it indicates observations
> that are censored.
>>
>> I've seen both usages in different references.  If you
> think there's an
>> authoritative reference that's opposite what this
> function expects, please
>> let me know.
>>
>
> Thanks, Tom. In all the references I read (Tibshirani's
> Generalized additive models, for example, and many recent
> papers in the bioinformatics/biostat literature), it's
> defined oppositely to Matlab. But it won't matter as long
> as users notice this difference.
>
> Since the source code is not accessible for this function,

COXPHFIT is an M-file (at least it is in Release R2008a -- I assume it is in 
previous releases as well.)  You can edit it and read the code.

*snip*

-- 
Steve Lord
slord@mathworks.com