POOR PERFORMANCE OF BOOTSTRAP CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR THE LOCATION OF A QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOUCS

The aim of many genetic studies is to locate the genomic regions (called quantitative trait loci, QTLs) that contribute to variation in a quantitative trait (such as body weight). Confidence intervals for the locations of QTLs are particularly important for the design of further experiments to identify the gene or genes responsible for the effect. Likelihood support intervals are the most widely used method to obtain confidence intervals for QTL location, but the non-parametric bootstrap has also been recommended. Through extensive computer simulation, we show that bootstrap confidence intervals are poorly behaved and so should not be used in this context. The profile likelihood (or LOD curve) for QTL location has a tendency to peak at genetic markers, and so the distribution of the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of QTL location has the unusual feature of point masses at genetic markers; this contributes to the poor behavior of the bootstrap. Likelihood support intervals and approximate Bayes credible intervals, on the other hand, are shown to behave appropriately.

The Importance of Scale for Spatial-confounding Bias and Precision of Spatial Regression Estimators

Increasingly, regression models are used when residuals are spatially correlated. Prominent examples include studies in environmental epidemiology to understand the chronic health effects of pollutants. I consider the effects of residual spatial structure on the bias and precision of regression coefficients, developing a simple framework in which to understand the key issues and derive informative analytic results. When the spatial residual is induced by an unmeasured confounder, regression models with spatial random effects and closely-related models such as kriging and penalized splines are biased, even when the residual variance components are known. Analytic and simulation results show how the bias depends on the spatial scales of the covariate and the residual; bias is reduced only when there is variation in the covariate at a scale smaller than the scale of the unmeasured confounding. I also discuss how the scales of the residual and the covariate affect efficiency and uncertainty estimation when the residuals can be considered independent of the covariate. In an application on the association between black carbon particulate matter air pollution and birth weight, controlling for large-scale spatial variation appears to reduce bias from unmeasured confounders, while increasing uncertainty in the estimated pollution effect.

On the Behaviour of Marginal and Conditional Akaike Information Criteria in Linear Mixed Models

In linear mixed models, model selection frequently includes the selection of random effects. Two versions of the Akaike information criterion (AIC) have been used, based either on the marginal or on the conditional distribution. We show that the marginal AIC is no longer an asymptotically unbiased estimator of the Akaike information, and in fact favours smaller models without random effects. For the conditional AIC, we show that ignoring estimation uncertainty in the random effects covariance matrix, as is common practice, induces a bias that leads to the selection of any random effect not predicted to be exactly zero. We derive an analytic representation of a corrected version of the conditional AIC, which avoids the high computational cost and imprecision of available numerical approximations. An implementation in an R package is provided. All theoretical results are illustrated in simulation studies, and their impact in practice is investigated in an analysis of childhood malnutrition in Zambia.