Bayesian Estimation for Performance Measures of Two Diagnostic Tests in the Presence of Verification Bias

Sensitivity and specificity are measures that allow us to evaluate the performance of a diagnostic test. In practice, it is common to have situations where a proportion of selected individuals cannot have the real state of the disease verified, since the verification could be an invasive procedure, as occurs with biopsy. This happens, as a special case, in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, or in any other situation related to risks, that is, not practicable, nor ethical, or in situations with high cost. For this case, it is common to use diagnostic tests based only on the information of verified individuals. This procedure can lead to biased results or workup bias. In this paper, we introduce a Bayesian approach to estimate the sensitivity and the specificity for two diagnostic tests considering verified and unverified individuals, a result that generalizes the usual situation based on only one diagnostic test.

Use of Bayesian Methods for Multivariate Bioequivalence Measures

In this paper, we introduce a Bayesian analysis for bioequivalence data assuming multivariate pharmacokinetic measures. With the introduction of correlation parameters between the pharmacokinetic measures or between the random effects in the bioequivalence models, we observe a good improvement in the bioequivalence results. These results are of great practical interest since they can yield higher accuracy and reliability for the bioequivalence tests, usually assumed by regulatory offices. An example is introduced to illustrate the proposed methodology by comparing the usual univariate bioequivalence methods with multivariate bioequivalence. We also consider some usual existing discrimination Bayesian methods to choose the best model to be used in bioequivalence studies.

Sampling, WLS, and Mixed Models

Mixed models may be defined with or without reference to sampling, and can be used to predict realized random effects, as when estimating the latent values of study subjects measured with response error. When the model is specified without reference to sampling, a simple mixed model includes two random variables, one stemming from an exchangeable distribution of latent values of study subjects and the other, from the study subjects` response error distributions. Positive probabilities are assigned to both potentially realizable responses and artificial responses that are not potentially realizable, resulting in artificial latent values. In contrast, finite population mixed models represent the two-stage process of sampling subjects and measuring their responses, where positive probabilities are only assigned to potentially realizable responses. A comparison of the estimators over the same potentially realizable responses indicates that the optimal linear mixed model estimator (the usual best linear unbiased predictor, BLUP) is often (but not always) more accurate than the comparable finite population mixed model estimator (the FPMM BLUP). We examine a simple example and provide the basis for a broader discussion of the role of conditioning, sampling, and model assumptions in developing inference.

Inference and local influence assessment in skew-normal null intercept measurement error model

In this article, we discuss inferential aspects of the measurement error regression models with null intercepts when the unknown quantity x (latent variable) follows a skew normal distribution. We examine first the maximum-likelihood approach to estimation via the EM algorithm by exploring statistical properties of the model considered. Then, the marginal likelihood, the score function and the observed information matrix of the observed quantities are presented allowing direct inference implementation. In order to discuss some diagnostics techniques in this type of models, we derive the appropriate matrices to assessing the local influence on the parameter estimates under different perturbation schemes. The results and methods developed in this paper are illustrated considering part of a real data set used by Hadgu and Koch [1999, Application of generalized estimating equations to a dental randomized clinical trial. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 9, 161-178].