Model Evaluation Based on the Distribution of Estimated Absolute Prediction Error

The construction of a reliable, practically useful prediction rule for future response is heavily dependent on the "adequacy" of the fitted regression model. In this article, we consider the absolute prediction error, the expected value of the absolute difference between the future and predicted responses, as the model evaluation criterion. This prediction error is easier to interpret than the average squared error and is equivalent to the mis-classification error for the binary outcome. We show that the distributions of the apparent error and its cross-validation counterparts are approximately normal even under a misspecified fitted model. When the prediction rule is "unsmooth", the variance of the above normal distribution can be estimated well via a perturbation-resampling method. We also show how to approximate the distribution of the difference of the estimated prediction errors from two competing models. With two real examples, we demonstrate that the resulting interval estimates for prediction errors provide much more information about model adequacy than the point estimates alone.

Evaluating Prediction Rules for t-Year Survivors With Censored Regression Models

Suppose that we are interested in establishing simple, but reliable rules for predicting future t-year survivors via censored regression models. In this article, we present inference procedures for evaluating such binary classification rules based on various prediction precision measures quantified by the overall misclassification rate, sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. Specifically, under various working models we derive consistent estimators for the above measures via substitution and cross validation estimation procedures. Furthermore, we provide large sample approximations to the distributions of these nonsmooth estimators without assuming that the working model is correctly specified. Confidence intervals, for example, for the difference of the precision measures between two competing rules can then be constructed. All the proposals are illustrated with two real examples and their finite sample properties are evaluated via a simulation study.

Error models for microarray intensities

We derive the additive-multiplicative error model for microarray intensities, and describe two applications. For the detection of differentially expressed genes, we obtain a statistic whose variance is approximately independent of the mean intensity. For the post hoc calibration (normalization) of data with respect to experimental factors, we describe a method for parameter estimation.

Inference on Survival Data with Covariate Measurement Error - An Imputation-based Approach

We propose a new method for fitting proportional hazards models with error-prone covariates. Regression coefficients are estimated by solving an estimating equation that is the average of the partial likelihood scores based on imputed true covariates. For the purpose of imputation, a linear spline model is assumed on the baseline hazard. We discuss consistency and asymptotic normality of the resulting estimators, and propose a stochastic approximation scheme to obtain the estimates. The algorithm is easy to implement, and reduces to the ordinary Cox partial likelihood approach when the measurement error has a degenerative distribution. Simulations indicate high efficiency and robustness. We consider the special case where error-prone replicates are available on the unobserved true covariates. As expected, increasing the number of replicate for the unobserved covariates increases efficiency and reduces bias. We illustrate the practical utility of the proposed method with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group clinical trial where a genetic marker, c-myc expression level, is subject to measurement error.

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.