Abstract
Background Parametric time-to-event models require specification of a baseline hazard function, which may influence prediction when the underlying hazard shape is uncertain. This study compared conventional joint longitudinal–time-to-event models with mechanistic Multi-Task Logistic Regression, which directly models the survival distribution without selecting a parametric hazard family.
Methods Two complementary analyses were conducted. First, a simulated dataset of 100 individuals with longitudinal sum of longest diameters and event outcomes was analyzed using a shared mechanistic tumour shrinkage-regrowth model. Second, the same event-model families were applied to a clinical progression-free survival dataset containing 453 patients and 1,346 longitudinal SLD observations. Event submodels comprised exponential, Gompertz, Weibull, log- normal, log-logistic, and periodic or circadian hazards, mechanistic MTLR, and a hybrid neural- mechanistic extension. The simulated analysis used five-fold cross-validation, dynamic discrimination, Brier scores, integrated Brier score, calibration, and event-interval log score. The clinical case study used joint-estimation diagnostics and model-specific simulation-based longitudinal and PFS visual predictive checks.
Results In the simulated dataset, longitudinal parameter estimates were comparable across models. The log-normal hazard achieved the lowest overall integrated Brier score (0.1928), whereas mechanistic MTLR achieved the highest later-landmark discrimination (AUC 0.867 versus 0.798 for all hazard models) and the lowest mean event-interval negative log score (2.362). In the clinical dataset, all eight models met numerical convergence criteria. The SLD-event association was positive across all event formulations. The periodic hazard had the lowest AIC among continuous-time hazard models but estimated a period of approximately 58 days, consistent with scheduled progression assessment. Mechanistic and hybrid MTLR showed the strongest descriptive PFS VPC calibration, with 93.4% and 95.9% coverage of the observed Kaplan-Meier curve, respectively. The hybrid nonlinear weight was small and imprecise.
Conclusions The simulated and clinical analyses jointly support mechanistic MTLR as a practical complementary approach to conventional joint hazard models. Parametric hazards can provide strong probabilistic accuracy when the hazard family is well chosen, whereas mechanistic MTLR avoids continuous baseline hazard-family selection and can provide competitive discrimination and event-time distribution prediction.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The manuscript was revised to retain the complete simulated-data experiment while adding a second analysis based on a real clinical PFS dataset. The Methods section was expanded to describe the clinical dataset, PFS endpoint derivation, sparse longitudinal SLD sampling, and the revised clinical longitudinal model. The six parametric hazards, mechanistic MTLR, and hybrid MTLR were then applied to PFS. The Results section now includes new Tables 5-6 and Figures 4-5 to capture results of the clinical dataset. The Discussion was expanded to compare findings across simulated and clinical analyses, address longitudinal identifiability, interpret the periodic hazard cautiously, and distinguish descriptive clinical calibration from formal cross-validated validation.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
