Efficiency of the Sieved-NPMLE in CAR-Missing Data Models

We consider nonparametric missing data models for which the censoring mechanism satisfies coarsening at random and which allow complete observations on the variable X of interest. W show that beyond some empirical process conditions the only essential condition for efficiency of an NPMLE of the distribution of X is that the regions associated with incomplete observations on X contain enough complete observations. This is heuristically explained by describing the EM-algorithm. We provide identifiably of the self-consistency equation and efficiency of the NPMLE in order to make this statement rigorous. The usual kind of differentiability conditions in the proof are avoided by using an identity which holds for the NPMLE of linear parameters in convex models. We provide a bivariate censoring application in which the condition and hence the NPMLE fails, but where other estimators, not based on the NPMLE principle, are highly inefficient. It is shown how to slightly reduce the data so that the conditions hold for the reduced data. The conditions are verified for the univariate censoring, double censored, and Ibragimov-Has'minski models.

RANDOM EFFECTS MODELS IN A META-ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF DIAGNOSTIC TESTS WITHIN A GOLD STANDARD IN THE PRESENCE OF MISSING DATA

In evaluating the accuracy of diagnosis tests, it is common to apply two imperfect tests jointly or sequentially to a study population. In a recent meta-analysis of the accuracy of microsatellite instability testing (MSI) and traditional mutation analysis (MUT) in predicting germline mutations of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, a Bayesian approach (Chen, Watson, and Parmigiani 2005) was proposed to handle missing data resulting from partial testing and the lack of a gold standard. In this paper, we demonstrate an improved estimation of the sensitivities and specificities of MSI and MUT by using a nonlinear mixed model and a Bayesian hierarchical model, both of which account for the heterogeneity across studies through study-specific random effects. The methods can be used to estimate the accuracy of two imperfect diagnostic tests in other meta-analyses when the prevalence of disease, the sensitivities and/or the specificities of diagnostic tests are heterogeneous among studies. Furthermore, simulation studies have demonstrated the importance of carefully selecting appropriate random effects on the estimation of diagnostic accuracy measurements in this scenario.