Limitations of Remotely-sensed Aerosol as a Spatial Proxy for Fine Particulate Matter

Recent research highlights the promise of remotely-sensed aerosol optical depth (AOD) as a proxy for ground-level PM2.5. Particular interest lies in the information on spatial heterogeneity potentially provided by AOD, with important application to estimating and monitoring pollution exposure for public health purposes. Given the temporal and spatio-temporal correlations reported between AOD and PM2.5 , it is tempting to interpret the spatial patterns in AOD as reflecting patterns in PM2.5 . Here we find only limited spatial associations of AOD from three satellite retrievals with PM2.5 over the eastern U.S. at the daily and yearly levels in 2004. We then use statistical modeling to show that the patterns in monthly average AOD poorly reflect patterns in PM2.5 because of systematic, spatially-correlated error in AOD as a proxy for PM2.5 . Furthermore, when we include AOD as a predictor of monthly PM2.5 in a statistical prediction model, AOD provides little additional information to improve predictions of PM2.5 when included in a model that already accounts for land use, emission sources, meteorology and regional variability. These results suggest caution in using spatial variation in AOD to stand in for spatial variation in ground-level PM2.5 in epidemiological analyses and indicate that when PM2.5 monitoring is available, careful statistical modeling outperforms the use of AOD.

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.

A Cox Model for Biostatistics of the Future

Professor Sir David R. Cox (DRC) is widely acknowledged as among the most important scientists of the second half of the twentieth century. He inherited the mantle of statistical science from Pearson and Fisher, advanced their ideas, and translated statistical theory into practice so as to forever change the application of statistics in many fields, but especially biology and medicine. The logistic and proportional hazards models he substantially developed, are arguably among the most influential biostatistical methods in current practice. This paper looks forward over the period from DRC's 80th to 90th birthdays, to speculate about the future of biostatistics, drawing lessons from DRC's contributions along the way. We consider "Cox's model" of biostatistics, an approach to statistical science that: formulates scientific questions or quantities in terms of parameters gamma in probability models f(y; gamma) that represent in a parsimonious fashion, the underlying scientific mechanisms (Cox, 1997); partition the parameters gamma = theta, eta into a subset of interest theta and other "nuisance parameters" eta necessary to complete the probability distribution (Cox and Hinkley, 1974); develops methods of inference about the scientific quantities that depend as little as possible upon the nuisance parameters (Barndorff-Nielsen and Cox, 1989); and thinks critically about the appropriate conditional distribution on which to base infrences. We briefly review exciting biomedical and public health challenges that are capable of driving statistical developments in the next decade. We discuss the statistical models and model-based inferences central to the CM approach, contrasting them with computationally-intensive strategies for prediction and inference advocated by Breiman and others (e.g. Breiman, 2001) and to more traditional design-based methods of inference (Fisher, 1935). We discuss the hierarchical (multi-level) model as an example of the future challanges and opportunities for model-based inference. We then consider the role of conditional inference, a second key element of the CM. Recent examples from genetics are used to illustrate these ideas. Finally, the paper examines causal inference and statistical computing, two other topics we believe will be central to biostatistics research and practice in the coming decade. Throughout the paper, we attempt to indicate how DRC's work and the "Cox Model" have set a standard of excellence to which all can aspire in the future.

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.

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.