Uncertainty About the Incubation Period of AIDS and its Impact on Backcalculation

We analyze three sets of doubly-censored cohort data on incubation times, estimating incubation distributions using semi-parametric methods and assessing the comparability of the estimates. Weibull models appear to be inappropriate for at least one of the cohorts, and the estimates for the different cohorts are substantially different. We use these estimates as inputs for backcalculation, using a nonparametric method based on maximum penalized likelihood. The different incubations all produce fits to the reported AIDS counts that are as good as the fit from a nonstationary incubation distribution that models treatment effects, but the estimated infection curves are very different. We also develop a method for estimating nonstationarity as part of the backcalculation procedure and find that such estimates also depend very heavily on the assumed incubation distribution. We conclude that incubation distributions are so uncertain that meaningful error bounds are difficult to place on backcalculated estimates and that backcalculation may be too unreliable to be used without being supplemented by other sources of information in HIV prevalence and incidence.

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.

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.

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.

Semiparametric Theory for Causal Mediation Analysis: efficiency bounds, multiple robustness, and sensitivity analysis

Whilst estimation of the marginal (total) causal effect of a point exposure on an outcome is arguably the most common objective of experimental and observational studies in the health and social sciences, in recent years, investigators have also become increasingly interested in mediation analysis. Specifically, upon establishing a non-null total effect of the exposure, investigators routinely wish to make inferences about the direct (indirect) pathway of the effect of the exposure not through (through) a mediator variable that occurs subsequently to the exposure and prior to the outcome. Although powerful semiparametric methodologies have been developed to analyze observational studies, that produce double robust and highly efficient estimates of the marginal total causal effect, similar methods for mediation analysis are currently lacking. Thus, this paper develops a general semiparametric framework for obtaining inferences about so-called marginal natural direct and indirect causal effects, while appropriately accounting for a large number of pre-exposure confounding factors for the exposure and the mediator variables. Our analytic framework is particularly appealing, because it gives new insights on issues of efficiency and robustness in the context of mediation analysis. In particular, we propose new multiply robust locally efficient estimators of the marginal natural indirect and direct causal effects, and develop a novel double robust sensitivity analysis framework for the assumption of ignorability of the mediator variable.

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.