2020
DOI: 10.3233/jifs-179546
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Statistical analysis of competing risks lifetime data from Nadarajaha and Haghighi distribution under type-II censoring

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Recently, the problem of comparing two (or more) different censoring plans has also received considerable attention, among several authors see for example. 32, However, in order to determine the optimum progressive censoring plan, some commonly-used criteria are considered and reported in Table 2.…”
Section: Optimum Progressive Censoring Planmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Recently, the problem of comparing two (or more) different censoring plans has also received considerable attention, among several authors see for example. 32, However, in order to determine the optimum progressive censoring plan, some commonly-used criteria are considered and reported in Table 2.…”
Section: Optimum Progressive Censoring Planmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…31 discussed the NHD parameters under Type-II censoring with competing risks. 32 obtained the MLEs and BEs of the unknown parameters and reliability characteristics of the NHD in presence of progressive first-failure censored data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is assumed that the N independent elements undergo a lifetime test, with k taken into account prior the experiment, [29]. The initial failure, T 1:k , as well as the cause of the failure, δ 1 , are both recorded.…”
Section: Competing Risks Under Type II Censored Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Assuming n = 99, m = 50 and Ď„ = 0.7, the competing risks of the type I HCS are summarized by t = {(0.04, 2), (0.042, 2), (0.051, 2), (0.062, 2), (0.159, 1), (0.163, 2), (0.179, 2), (0.189, 1), (0.191, 1), (0.198, 1), (0.200, 1), (0.206, 2), (0.207, 1), (0.220, 1), (0.222, 2), (0.228, 2), (0.235, 1), (0.245, 1), (0.249, 2), (0.250, 1), (0.252, 2), (0.256, 1), (0.261, 1), (0.265, 1), (0.266, 1), (0.28, 1), (0.282, 2), (0.317, 1), (0.318, 1), (0.324, 2), (0.333, 2), (0.341, 2), (0.343, 1), (0.356, 1), (0.366, 2), (0.383, *), (0.385, *), (0.399, *), (0.403, 1), (0.407, 2), (0.414, 1), (0.420, 2), (0.428, 1), (0.431, 2), (0.432, 1), (0.441 2), (0.461, 2), (0.462, 2), (0.482, 2), (0.495, 1)}}. That is, the type I HCS competing risks have (n 1 , n 2 , n 3 , r) = (24,23,3,50).…”
Section: Example 1: a Disease Data Setmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, some applicatiosn of distribution have been introduced by Kayal et al [16]. More details about the competing risks model can be seen in [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29], and the references cited therein.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%