Checking Assumptions in Latent Class Regression Models via a Markov Chain Monte Carlo Estimation Approach: An Application to Depression and Socio-Economic Status

Latent class regression models are useful tools for assessing associations between covariates and latent variables. However, evaluation of key model assumptions cannot be performed using methods from standard regression models due to the unobserved nature of latent outcome variables. This paper presents graphical diagnostic tools to evaluate whether or not latent class regression models adhere to standard assumptions of the model: conditional independence and non-differential measurement. An integral part of these methods is the use of a Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation procedure. Unlike standard maximum likelihood implementations for latent class regression model estimation, the MCMC approach allows us to calculate posterior distributions and point estimates of any functions of parameters. It is this convenience that allows us to provide the diagnostic methods that we introduce. As a motivating example we present an analysis focusing on the association between depression and socioeconomic status, using data from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area study. We consider a latent class regression analysis investigating the association between depression and socioeconomic status measures, where the latent variable depression is regressed on education and income indicators, in addition to age, gender, and marital status variables. While the fitted latent class regression model yields interesting results, the model parameters are found to be invalid due to the violation of model assumptions. The violation of these assumptions is clearly identified by the presented diagnostic plots. These methods can be applied to standard latent class and latent class regression models, and the general principle can be extended to evaluate model assumptions in other types of models.

Limitations of the Odds Ratio in Gauging the Performance of a Diagnostic or Prognostic Marker

A marker that is strongly associated with outcome (or disease) is often assumed to be effective for classifying individuals according to their current or future outcome. However, for this to be true, the associated odds ratio must be of a magnitude rarely seen in epidemiological studies. An illustration of the relationship between odds ratios and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves shows, for example, that a marker with an odds ratio as high as 3 is in fact a very poor classification tool. If a marker identifies 10 percent of controls as positive (false positives) and has an odds ratio of 3, then it will only correctly identify 25 percent of cases as positive (true positives). Moreover, the authors illustrate that a single measure of association such as an odds ratio does not meaningfully describe a marker’s ability to classify subjects. Appropriate statistical methods for assessing and reporting the classification power of a marker are described. The serious pitfalls of using more traditional methods based on parameters in logistic regression models are illustrated.

RANDOM EFFECTS MODELS IN A META-ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF DIAGNOSTIC TESTS WITHIN A GOLD STANDARD IN THE PRESENCE OF MISSING DATA

In evaluating the accuracy of diagnosis tests, it is common to apply two imperfect tests jointly or sequentially to a study population. In a recent meta-analysis of the accuracy of microsatellite instability testing (MSI) and traditional mutation analysis (MUT) in predicting germline mutations of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, a Bayesian approach (Chen, Watson, and Parmigiani 2005) was proposed to handle missing data resulting from partial testing and the lack of a gold standard. In this paper, we demonstrate an improved estimation of the sensitivities and specificities of MSI and MUT by using a nonlinear mixed model and a Bayesian hierarchical model, both of which account for the heterogeneity across studies through study-specific random effects. The methods can be used to estimate the accuracy of two imperfect diagnostic tests in other meta-analyses when the prevalence of disease, the sensitivities and/or the specificities of diagnostic tests are heterogeneous among studies. Furthermore, simulation studies have demonstrated the importance of carefully selecting appropriate random effects on the estimation of diagnostic accuracy measurements in this scenario.