Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

st: st: Handling age in Hazard Ratios

From   "Clifton Chow" <>
Subject   st: st: Handling age in Hazard Ratios
Date   Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:24:12 -0500

I got it from Wooldridge, p. 193.  It's just the maximum.

>  -------Original Message-------

Where did you get the algebra suggesting that .9299/2*1.0007 represents the turning point?
 di ln(.9299)/(2*ln(1.0007))

>  From: Clifton Chow <>
>  To:
>  Subject: st: Handling age in Hazard Ratios
>  Sent: 04 Jun '12 12:46
>  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?
>  Thanks
*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index