Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: st: st: Handling age in Hazard Ratios
From
Austin Nichols <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: st: Handling age in Hazard Ratios
Date
Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:12:16 -0400
Clifton Chow <[email protected]>:
Where did you get the algebra suggesting that .9299/2*1.0007
represents the turning point?
di ln(.9299)/(2*ln(1.0007))
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Clifton Chow
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I ran a proportional hazards model on the duration of employment and had as my covariates, age and age^2, respectively. The coefficients and hazard ratios for both variables are below:
>
> Coefficient: Age = -.0727
> Age^2 = .0007
>
> Hazard Ratio: Age = .9299
> Age^2 = 1.0007
>
> I am trying to interpret the diminishing effect of the quadratic term by calculating the age at which the risk changes from a decrease to ian ncrease risk of job loss. I did this by dividing the age coefficient by 2 * age^2 coefficient. However, when performing this calculation on the raw coefficient, the age of change is 52 (.0727/2*.0007) but in the hazard ratios, that age is 46 (.9299/2*1.0007). Does anyone know which convention to report? I think the difference of 5 years between the two sets of coefficients are important, right?
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/