MULTIPLE DISEASES IN CARRIER PROBABILITY ESTIMATION: ACCOUNTING FOR SURVIVING ALL CANCERS OTHER THAN BREAST AND OVARY IN BRCAPRO

Mendelian models can predict who carries an inherited deleterious mutation of known disease genes based on family history. For example, the BRCAPRO model is commonly used to identify families who carry mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2, based on familial breast and ovarian cancers. These models incorporate the age of diagnosis of diseases in relatives and current age or age of death. We develop a rigorous foundation for handling multiple diseases with censoring. We prove that any disease unrelated to mutations can be excluded from the model, unless it is sufficiently common and dependent on a mutation-related disease time. Furthermore, if a family member has a disease with higher probability density among mutation carriers, but the model does not account for it, then the carrier probability is deflated. However, even if a family only has diseases the model accounts for, if the model excludes a mutation-related disease, then the carrier probability will be inflated. In light of these results, we extend BRCAPRO to account for surviving all non-breast/ovary cancers as a single outcome. The extension also enables BRCAPRO to extract more useful information from male relatives. Using 1500 familes from the Cancer Genetics Network, accounting for surviving other cancers improves BRCAPRO’s concordance index from 0.758 to 0.762 (p = 0.046), improves its positive predictive value from 35% to 39% (p < 10−6) without impacting its negative predictive value, and improves its overall calibration, although calibration slightly worsens for those with carrier probability < 10%. Copyright c 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Concordance Probability and Discriminatory Power in Proportional Hazards Regression

The concordance probability is used to evaluate the discriminatory power and the predictive accuracy of nonlinear statistical models. We derive an analytic expression for the concordance probability in the Cox proportional hazards model. The proposed estimator is a function of the regression parameters and the covariate distribution only and does not use the observed event and censoring times. For this reason it is asymptotically unbiased, unlike Harrell's c-index based on informative pairs. The asymptotic distribution of the concordance probability estimate is derived using U-statistic theory and the methodology is applied to a predictive model in lung cancer.

Posterior Simulation in the Generalized Linear Model with Semiparmetric Random Effects

Generalized linear mixed models with semiparametric random effects are useful in a wide variety of Bayesian applications. When the random effects arise from a mixture of Dirichlet process (MDP) model, normal base measures and Gibbs sampling procedures based on the Pólya urn scheme are often used to simulate posterior draws. These algorithms are applicable in the conjugate case when (for a normal base measure) the likelihood is normal. In the non-conjugate case, the algorithms proposed by MacEachern and Müller (1998) and Neal (2000) are often applied to generate posterior samples. Some common problems associated with simulation algorithms for non-conjugate MDP models include convergence and mixing difficulties. This paper proposes an algorithm based on the Pólya urn scheme that extends the Gibbs sampling algorithms to non-conjugate models with normal base measures and exponential family likelihoods. The algorithm proceeds by making Laplace approximations to the likelihood function, thereby reducing the procedure to that of conjugate normal MDP models. To ensure the validity of the stationary distribution in the non-conjugate case, the proposals are accepted or rejected by a Metropolis-Hastings step. In the special case where the data are normally distributed, the algorithm is identical to the Gibbs sampler.

ASSESSING THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE MEDICAL LITERATURE: A RESPONSE TO "WHY MOST PUBLISHED RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE"

A recent article in this journal (Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124) argued that more than half of published research findings in the medical literature are false. In this commentary, we examine the structure of that argument, and show that it has three basic components: 1)An assumption that the prior probability of most hypotheses explored in medical research is below 50%. 2)Dichotomization of P-values at the 0.05 level and introduction of a “bias” factor (produced by significance-seeking), the combination of which severely weakens the evidence provided by every design. 3)Use of Bayes theorem to show that, in the face of weak evidence, hypotheses with low prior probabilities cannot have posterior probabilities over 50%. Thus, the claim is based on a priori assumptions that most tested hypotheses are likely to be false, and then the inferential model used makes it impossible for evidence from any study to overcome this handicap. We focus largely on step (2), explaining how the combination of dichotomization and “bias” dilutes experimental evidence, and showing how this dilution leads inevitably to the stated conclusion. We also demonstrate a fallacy in another important component of the argument –that papers in “hot” fields are more likely to produce false findings. We agree with the paper’s conclusions and recommendations that many medical research findings are less definitive than readers suspect, that P-values are widely misinterpreted, that bias of various forms is widespread, that multiple approaches are needed to prevent the literature from being systematically biased and the need for more data on the prevalence of false claims. But calculating the unreliability of the medical research literature, in whole or in part, requires more empirical evidence and different inferential models than were used. The claim that “most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields” must be considered as yet unproven.