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 NOVEL AND SIMPLE RULE OF THUMB FOR MULTIPLICITY CONTROL IN EQUIVALENCE TESTING USING TWO ONE-SIDED TESTS

Equivalence testing is growing in use in scientific research outside of its traditional role in the drug approval process. Largely due to its ease of use and recommendation from the United States Food and Drug Administration guidance, the most common statistical method for testing (bio)equivalence is the two one-sided tests procedure (TOST). Like classical point-null hypothesis testing, TOST is subject to multiplicity concerns as more comparisons are made. In this manuscript, a condition that bounds the family-wise error rate (FWER) using TOST is given. This condition then leads to a simple solution for controlling the FWER. Specifically, we demonstrate that if all pairwise comparisons of k independent groups are being evaluated for equivalence, then simply scaling the nominal Type I error rate down by (k - 1) is sufficient to maintain the family-wise error rate at the desired value or less. The resulting rule is much less conservative than the equally simple Bonferroni correction. An example of equivalence testing in a non drug-development setting is given.

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.