Large Sample Theory for Semiparametric Regression Models with Two-Phase, Outcome Dependent Sampling

Outcome-dependent, two-phase sampling designs can dramatically reduce the costs of observational studies by judicious selection of the most informative subjects for purposes of detailed covariate measurement. Here we derive asymptotic information bounds and the form of the efficient score and influence functions for the semiparametric regression models studied by Lawless, Kalbfleisch, and Wild (1999) under two-phase sampling designs. We show that the maximum likelihood estimators for both the parametric and nonparametric parts of the model are asymptotically normal and efficient. The efficient influence function for the parametric part aggress with the more general information bound calculations of Robins, Hsieh, and Newey (1995). By verifying the conditions of Murphy and Van der Vaart (2000) for a least favorable parametric submodel, we provide asymptotic justification for statistical inference based on profile likelihood.

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.