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.

A Cox Model for Biostatistics of the Future

Professor Sir David R. Cox (DRC) is widely acknowledged as among the most important scientists of the second half of the twentieth century. He inherited the mantle of statistical science from Pearson and Fisher, advanced their ideas, and translated statistical theory into practice so as to forever change the application of statistics in many fields, but especially biology and medicine. The logistic and proportional hazards models he substantially developed, are arguably among the most influential biostatistical methods in current practice. This paper looks forward over the period from DRC's 80th to 90th birthdays, to speculate about the future of biostatistics, drawing lessons from DRC's contributions along the way. We consider "Cox's model" of biostatistics, an approach to statistical science that: formulates scientific questions or quantities in terms of parameters gamma in probability models f(y; gamma) that represent in a parsimonious fashion, the underlying scientific mechanisms (Cox, 1997); partition the parameters gamma = theta, eta into a subset of interest theta and other "nuisance parameters" eta necessary to complete the probability distribution (Cox and Hinkley, 1974); develops methods of inference about the scientific quantities that depend as little as possible upon the nuisance parameters (Barndorff-Nielsen and Cox, 1989); and thinks critically about the appropriate conditional distribution on which to base infrences. We briefly review exciting biomedical and public health challenges that are capable of driving statistical developments in the next decade. We discuss the statistical models and model-based inferences central to the CM approach, contrasting them with computationally-intensive strategies for prediction and inference advocated by Breiman and others (e.g. Breiman, 2001) and to more traditional design-based methods of inference (Fisher, 1935). We discuss the hierarchical (multi-level) model as an example of the future challanges and opportunities for model-based inference. We then consider the role of conditional inference, a second key element of the CM. Recent examples from genetics are used to illustrate these ideas. Finally, the paper examines causal inference and statistical computing, two other topics we believe will be central to biostatistics research and practice in the coming decade. Throughout the paper, we attempt to indicate how DRC's work and the "Cox Model" have set a standard of excellence to which all can aspire in the future.

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.

Effectively Selecting a Target Population for a Future Comparative Study

When comparing a new treatment with a control in a randomized clinical study, the treatment effect is generally assessed by evaluating a summary measure over a specific study population. The success of the trial heavily depends on the choice of such a population. In this paper, we show a systematic, effective way to identify a promising population, for which the new treatment is expected to have a desired benefit, using the data from a current study involving similar comparator treatments. Specifically, with the existing data we first create a parametric scoring system using multiple covariates to estimate subject-specific treatment differences. Using this system, we specify a desired level of treatment difference and create a subgroup of patients, defined as those whose estimated scores exceed this threshold. An empirically calibrated group-specific treatment difference curve across a range of threshold values is constructed. The population of patients with any desired level of treatment benefit can then be identified accordingly. To avoid any ``self-serving'' bias, we utilize a cross-training-evaluation method for implementing the above two-step procedure. Lastly, we show how to select the best scoring system among all competing models. The proposals are illustrated with the data from two clinical trials in treating AIDS and cardiovascular diseases. Note that if we are not interested in designing a new study for comparing similar treatments, the new procedure can also be quite useful for the management of future patients who would receive nontrivial benefits to compensate for the risk or cost of the new treatment.