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.

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.

MULTIPLE MODEL EVALUATION ABSENT THE GOLD STANDARD VIA MODEL COMBINATION

We describe a method for evaluating an ensemble of predictive models given a sample of observations comprising the model predictions and the outcome event measured with error. Our formulation allows us to simultaneously estimate measurement error parameters, true outcome — aka the gold standard — and a relative weighting of the predictive scores. We describe conditions necessary to estimate the gold standard and for these estimates to be calibrated and detail how our approach is related to, but distinct from, standard model combination techniques. We apply our approach to data from a study to evaluate a collection of BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutation prediction scores. In this example, genotype is measured with error by one or more genetic assays. We estimate true genotype for each individual in the dataset, operating characteristics of the commonly used genotyping procedures and a relative weighting of the scores. Finally, we compare the scores against the gold standard genotype and find that Mendelian scores are, on average, the more refined and better calibrated of those considered and that the comparison is sensitive to measurement error in the gold standard.