{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018421052631578946, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013157894736842105, 'mean_word_length': 5.0396825396825395, '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}}
Surviving Proportional Hazards

Schlichting et al. (1) analyzed data from a clinical trial of cirrhotics treated with prednisone or placebo to determine which clinical factors are related to the length of patient survival. Such an analysis asks in effect: What are good prognostic signs? What are bad signs? How much difference in survival might the presence of a particular sign be expected to make? Schlichting et al. used a statistical method called the Cox proportional hazard model. Although the statistical method is complex, the ideas underlying it are straightforward. This editorial is to explain the nature of the methods used and to discuss their strengths and weaknesses. Tables and figures of plausible but hypothetical data have been constructed.