On the Behaviour of Marginal and Conditional Akaike Information Criteria in Linear Mixed Models

In linear mixed models, model selection frequently includes the selection of random effects. Two versions of the Akaike information criterion (AIC) have been used, based either on the marginal or on the conditional distribution. We show that the marginal AIC is no longer an asymptotically unbiased estimator of the Akaike information, and in fact favours smaller models without random effects. For the conditional AIC, we show that ignoring estimation uncertainty in the random effects covariance matrix, as is common practice, induces a bias that leads to the selection of any random effect not predicted to be exactly zero. We derive an analytic representation of a corrected version of the conditional AIC, which avoids the high computational cost and imprecision of available numerical approximations. An implementation in an R package is provided. All theoretical results are illustrated in simulation studies, and their impact in practice is investigated in an analysis of childhood malnutrition in Zambia.

QUANTIFYING UNCERTAINTY IN GENOTYPE CALLS

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are used to discover genes underlying complex, heritable disorders for which less powerful study designs have failed in the past. The number of GWAS has skyrocketed recently with findings reported in top journals and the mainstream media. Mircorarrays are the genotype calling technology of choice in GWAS as they permit exploration of more than a million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)simultaneously. The starting point for the statistical analyses used by GWAS, to determine association between loci and disease, are genotype calls (AA, AB, or BB). However, the raw data, microarray probe intensities, are heavily processed before arriving at these calls. Various sophisticated statistical procedures have been proposed for transforming raw data into genotype calls. We find that variability in microarray output quality across different SNPs, different arrays, and different sample batches has substantial inuence on the accuracy of genotype calls made by existing algorithms. Failure to account for these sources of variability, GWAS run the risk of adversely affecting the quality of reported findings. In this paper we present solutions based on a multi-level mixed model. Software implementation of the method described in this paper is available as free and open source code in the crlmm R/BioConductor.

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.