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.

Checking Assumptions in Latent Class Regression Models via a Markov Chain Monte Carlo Estimation Approach: An Application to Depression and Socio-Economic Status

Latent class regression models are useful tools for assessing associations between covariates and latent variables. However, evaluation of key model assumptions cannot be performed using methods from standard regression models due to the unobserved nature of latent outcome variables. This paper presents graphical diagnostic tools to evaluate whether or not latent class regression models adhere to standard assumptions of the model: conditional independence and non-differential measurement. An integral part of these methods is the use of a Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation procedure. Unlike standard maximum likelihood implementations for latent class regression model estimation, the MCMC approach allows us to calculate posterior distributions and point estimates of any functions of parameters. It is this convenience that allows us to provide the diagnostic methods that we introduce. As a motivating example we present an analysis focusing on the association between depression and socioeconomic status, using data from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area study. We consider a latent class regression analysis investigating the association between depression and socioeconomic status measures, where the latent variable depression is regressed on education and income indicators, in addition to age, gender, and marital status variables. While the fitted latent class regression model yields interesting results, the model parameters are found to be invalid due to the violation of model assumptions. The violation of these assumptions is clearly identified by the presented diagnostic plots. These methods can be applied to standard latent class and latent class regression models, and the general principle can be extended to evaluate model assumptions in other types of models.

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.