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.

Posterior Simulation in the Generalized Linear Model with Semiparmetric Random Effects

Generalized linear mixed models with semiparametric random effects are useful in a wide variety of Bayesian applications. When the random effects arise from a mixture of Dirichlet process (MDP) model, normal base measures and Gibbs sampling procedures based on the Pólya urn scheme are often used to simulate posterior draws. These algorithms are applicable in the conjugate case when (for a normal base measure) the likelihood is normal. In the non-conjugate case, the algorithms proposed by MacEachern and Müller (1998) and Neal (2000) are often applied to generate posterior samples. Some common problems associated with simulation algorithms for non-conjugate MDP models include convergence and mixing difficulties. This paper proposes an algorithm based on the Pólya urn scheme that extends the Gibbs sampling algorithms to non-conjugate models with normal base measures and exponential family likelihoods. The algorithm proceeds by making Laplace approximations to the likelihood function, thereby reducing the procedure to that of conjugate normal MDP models. To ensure the validity of the stationary distribution in the non-conjugate case, the proposals are accepted or rejected by a Metropolis-Hastings step. In the special case where the data are normally distributed, the algorithm is identical to the Gibbs sampler.

Studying Effects of Primary Care Physicians and Patients on the Trade-Off Between Charges for Primary Care and Specialty Care Using a Hierarchical Multivariate Two-Part Model

Objective. To examine effects of primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients on the association between charges for primary care and specialty care in a point-of-service (POS) health plan. Data Source. Claims from 1996 for 3,308 adult male POS plan members, each of whom was assigned to one of the 50 family practitioner-PCPs with the largest POS plan member-loads. Study Design. A hierarchical multivariate two-part model was fitted using a Gibbs sampler to estimate PCPs' effects on patients' annual charges for two types of services, primary care and specialty care, the associations among PCPs' effects, and within-patient associations between charges for the two services. Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACGs) were used to adjust for case-mix. Principal Findings. PCPs with higher case-mix adjusted rates of specialist use were less likely to see their patients at least once during the year (estimated correlation: –.40; 95% CI: –.71, –.008) and provided fewer services to patients that they saw (estimated correlation: –.53; 95% CI: –.77, –.21). Ten of 11 PCPs whose case-mix adjusted effects on primary care charges were significantly less than or greater than zero (p < .05) had estimated, case-mix adjusted effects on specialty care charges that were of opposite sign (but not significantly different than zero). After adjustment for ACG and PCP effects, the within-patient, estimated odds ratio for any use of primary care given any use of specialty care was .57 (95% CI: .45, .73). Conclusions. PCPs and patients contributed independently to a trade-off between utilization of primary care and specialty care. The trade-off appeared to partially offset significant differences in the amount of care provided by PCPs. These findings were possible because we employed a hierarchical multivariate model rather than separate univariate models.