Fitting ACE Structural Equation Models to Case-Control Family Data

Investigators interested in whether a disease aggregates in families often collect case-control family data, which consist of disease status and covariate information for families selected via case or control probands. Here, we focus on the use of case-control family data to investigate the relative contributions to the disease of additive genetic effects (A), shared family environment (C), and unique environment (E). To this end, we describe a ACE model for binary family data and then introduce an approach to fitting the model to case-control family data. The structural equation model, which has been described previously, combines a general-family extension of the classic ACE twin model with a (possibly covariate-specific) liability-threshold model for binary outcomes. Our likelihood-based approach to fitting involves conditioning on the proband’s disease status, as well as setting prevalence equal to a pre-specified value that can be estimated from the data themselves if necessary. Simulation experiments suggest that our approach to fitting yields approximately unbiased estimates of the A, C, and E variance components, provided that certain commonly-made assumptions hold. These assumptions include: the usual assumptions for the classic ACE and liability-threshold models; assumptions about shared family environment for relative pairs; and assumptions about the case-control family sampling, including single ascertainment. When our approach is used to fit the ACE model to Austrian case-control family data on depression, the resulting estimate of heritability is very similar to those from previous analyses of twin data.

Model Evaluation Based on the Distribution of Estimated Absolute Prediction Error

The construction of a reliable, practically useful prediction rule for future response is heavily dependent on the "adequacy" of the fitted regression model. In this article, we consider the absolute prediction error, the expected value of the absolute difference between the future and predicted responses, as the model evaluation criterion. This prediction error is easier to interpret than the average squared error and is equivalent to the mis-classification error for the binary outcome. We show that the distributions of the apparent error and its cross-validation counterparts are approximately normal even under a misspecified fitted model. When the prediction rule is "unsmooth", the variance of the above normal distribution can be estimated well via a perturbation-resampling method. We also show how to approximate the distribution of the difference of the estimated prediction errors from two competing models. With two real examples, we demonstrate that the resulting interval estimates for prediction errors provide much more information about model adequacy than the point estimates alone.

Evaluating Prediction Rules for t-Year Survivors With Censored Regression Models

Suppose that we are interested in establishing simple, but reliable rules for predicting future t-year survivors via censored regression models. In this article, we present inference procedures for evaluating such binary classification rules based on various prediction precision measures quantified by the overall misclassification rate, sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. Specifically, under various working models we derive consistent estimators for the above measures via substitution and cross validation estimation procedures. Furthermore, we provide large sample approximations to the distributions of these nonsmooth estimators without assuming that the working model is correctly specified. Confidence intervals, for example, for the difference of the precision measures between two competing rules can then be constructed. All the proposals are illustrated with two real examples and their finite sample properties are evaluated via a simulation study.

ASSESSING THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE MEDICAL LITERATURE: A RESPONSE TO "WHY MOST PUBLISHED RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE"

A recent article in this journal (Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124) argued that more than half of published research findings in the medical literature are false. In this commentary, we examine the structure of that argument, and show that it has three basic components: 1)An assumption that the prior probability of most hypotheses explored in medical research is below 50%. 2)Dichotomization of P-values at the 0.05 level and introduction of a “bias” factor (produced by significance-seeking), the combination of which severely weakens the evidence provided by every design. 3)Use of Bayes theorem to show that, in the face of weak evidence, hypotheses with low prior probabilities cannot have posterior probabilities over 50%. Thus, the claim is based on a priori assumptions that most tested hypotheses are likely to be false, and then the inferential model used makes it impossible for evidence from any study to overcome this handicap. We focus largely on step (2), explaining how the combination of dichotomization and “bias” dilutes experimental evidence, and showing how this dilution leads inevitably to the stated conclusion. We also demonstrate a fallacy in another important component of the argument –that papers in “hot” fields are more likely to produce false findings. We agree with the paper’s conclusions and recommendations that many medical research findings are less definitive than readers suspect, that P-values are widely misinterpreted, that bias of various forms is widespread, that multiple approaches are needed to prevent the literature from being systematically biased and the need for more data on the prevalence of false claims. But calculating the unreliability of the medical research literature, in whole or in part, requires more empirical evidence and different inferential models than were used. The claim that “most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields” must be considered as yet unproven.

A unified approach to modeling multivariate binary data using copulas over partitions

Many seemingly disparate approaches for marginal modeling have been developed in recent years. We demonstrate that many current approaches for marginal modeling of correlated binary outcomes produce likelihoods that are equivalent to the proposed copula-based models herein. These general copula models of underlying latent threshold random variables yield likelihood based models for marginal fixed effects estimation and interpretation in the analysis of correlated binary data. Moreover, we propose a nomenclature and set of model relationships that substantially elucidates the complex area of marginalized models for binary data. A diverse collection of didactic mathematical and numerical examples are given to illustrate concepts.