Nino Q.

Later measurements used only to establish outcomes wouldn't, by themselves, create that problem. Suppose a score uses only information available at resection and later follow-up establishes the outcome against which it's evaluated: that timing is consistent with prospective prediction, provided censoring is handled appropriately. Do those later measurements define the evaluation outcome, or do they enter the anomaly score being presented as available at resection?

In this hypothetical scheme, does observation start on a fixed schedule or because a person's condition changes, potentially linking entry timing to subsequent survival?

Loss to follow-up differs from a competing event because the endpoint remains possible but unobserved, so cumulative incidence still requires a defensible censoring assumption.

That risk-set question is decisive. I would distinguish the clinical time origin, resection, from the observation-entry date. If entry occurred later, the analysis should use left truncation rather than reset time zero, and report how many patients entered late and how much post-resection time elapsed before entry. Loss to follow-up and administrative study closure should then be described separately. Otherwise, selection into observation and censoring can both be mistaken for model failure.