MODELING DIFFERENTIATED TREATMENT EFFECTS FOR MULTIPLE OUTCOMES DATA

Multiple outcomes data are commonly used to characterize treatment effects in medical research, for instance, multiple symptoms to characterize potential remission of a psychiatric disorder. Often either a global, i.e. symptom-invariant, treatment effect is evaluated. Such a treatment effect may over generalize the effect across the outcomes. On the other hand individual treatment effects, varying across all outcomes, are complicated to interpret, and their estimation may lose precision relative to a global summary. An effective compromise to summarize the treatment effect may be through patterns of the treatment effects, i.e. "differentiated effects." In this paper we propose a two-category model to differentiate treatment effects into two groups. A model fitting algorithm and simulation study are presented, and several methods are developed to analyze heterogeneity presenting in the treatment effects. The method is illustrated using an analysis of schizophrenia symptom data.

A Method for Visualizing Multivariate Time Series Data

Visualization and exploratory analysis is an important part of any data analysis and is made more challenging when the data are voluminous and high-dimensional. One such example is environmental monitoring data, which are often collected over time and at multiple locations, resulting in a geographically indexed multivariate time series. Financial data, although not necessarily containing a geographic component, present another source of high-volume multivariate time series data. We present the mvtsplot function which provides a method for visualizing multivariate time series data. We outline the basic design concepts and provide some examples of its usage by applying it to a database of ambient air pollution measurements in the United States and to a hypothetical portfolio of stocks.

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.