{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017241379310344827, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.4860335195530725, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Properties of proportional-hazards score tests under misspecified regression models.

The effects are investigated of misspecifying a proportional-hazards regression model on the associated partial-likelihood score test for comparing two randomized treatments in the presence of covariates. The asymptotic efficiency of the proportional-hazards score test, relative to the optimal partial-likelihood test, declines slowly as the hazard functions for the two treatments deviate from proportionality; the efficiency can be very low when the hazard functions cross or differ only at large survival times. Misspecification of the functional form of the regression portion of a proportional-hazards model introduces a quantitative treatment-covariate interaction. In the situations that we examine, based on a binary covariate, this misspecification usually results in only a minor drop in efficiency. The omission of a covariate that is balanced across treatments has a negligible effect on the size of the score test, but can substantially reduce power when the covariate effect is strong. The loss of power from mismodeling a balanced covariate is usually small.