Abstract
Joint modeling and landmark modeling are two mainstream approaches to dynamic prediction in longitudinal studies, that is, the prediction of a clinical event using longitudinally measured predictor variables available up to the time of prediction. It is an important research question to the methodological research field and also to practical users to understand which approach can produce more accurate prediction. There were few previous studies on this topic, and the majority of results seemed to favor joint modeling. However, these studies were conducted in scenarios where the data were simulated from the joint models, partly due to the widely recognized methodological difficulty on whether there exists a general joint distribution of longitudinal and survival data so that the landmark models, which consists of infinitely many working regression models for survival, hold simultaneously. As a result, the landmark models always worked under misspecification, which caused difficulty in interpreting the comparison. In this paper, we solve this problem by using a novel algorithm to generate longitudinal and survival data that satisfies the working assumptions of the landmark models. This innovation makes it possible for a "fair" comparison of joint modeling and landmark modeling in terms of model specification. Our simulation results demonstrate that the relative performance of these two modeling approaches depends on the data settings and one does not always dominate the other in terms of prediction accuracy. These findings stress the importance of methodological development for both approaches. The related methodology is illustrated with a kidney transplantation dataset.