Underestimation of Standard Errors in Multi-Site Time Series Studies

Multi-site time series studies of air pollution and mortality and morbidity have figured prominently in the literature as comprehensive approaches for estimating acute effects of air pollution on health. Hierarchical models are generally used to combine site-specific information and estimate pooled air pollution effects taking into account both within-site statistical uncertainty, and across-site heterogeneity. Within a site, characteristics of time series data of air pollution and health (small pollution effects, missing data, highly correlated predictors, non linear confounding etc.) make modelling all sources of uncertainty challenging. One potential consequence is underestimation of the statistical variance of the site-specific effects to be combined. In this paper we investigate the impact of variance underestimation on the pooled relative rate estimate. We focus on two-stage normal-normal hierarchical models and on under- estimation of the statistical variance at the first stage. By mathematical considerations and simulation studies, we found that variance underestimation does not affect the pooled estimate substantially. However, some sensitivity of the pooled estimate to variance underestimation is observed when the number of sites is small and underestimation is severe. These simulation results are applicable to any two-stage normal-normal hierarchical model for combining information of site-specific results, and they can be easily extended to more general hierarchical formulations. We also examined the impact of variance underestimation on the national average relative rate estimate from the National Morbidity Mortality Air Pollution Study and we found that variance underestimation as much as 40% has little effect on the national average.

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.

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.