A comparison of Markov and generalized linear models of hospital mortality

This paper reports a comparison of three modeling strategies for the analysis of hospital mortality in a sample of general medicine inpatients in a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center. Logistic regression, a Markov chain model, and longitudinal logistic regression were evaluated on predictive performance as measured by the c-index and on accuracy of expected numbers of deaths compared to observed. The logistic regression used patient information collected at admission; the Markov model was comprised of two absorbing states for discharge and death and three transient states reflecting increasing severity of illness as measured by laboratory data collected during the hospital stay; longitudinal regression employed Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) to model covariance structure for the repeated binary outcome. Results showed that the logistic regression predicted hospital mortality as well as the alternative methods but was limited in scope of application. The Markov chain provides insights into how day to day changes of illness severity lead to discharge or death. The longitudinal logistic regression showed that increasing illness trajectory is associated with hospital mortality. The conclusion is reached that for standard applications in modeling hospital mortality, logistic regression is adequate, but for new challenges facing health services research today, alternative methods are equally predictive, practical, and can provide new insights. ^

Bayesian generalized linear models for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests

With the recognition of the importance of evidence-based medicine, there is an emerging need for methods to systematically synthesize available data. Specifically, methods to provide accurate estimates of test characteristics for diagnostic tests are needed to help physicians make better clinical decisions. To provide more flexible approaches for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests, we developed three Bayesian generalized linear models. Two of these models, a bivariate normal and a binomial model, analyzed pairs of sensitivity and specificity values while incorporating the correlation between these two outcome variables. Noninformative independent uniform priors were used for the variance of sensitivity, specificity and correlation. We also applied an inverse Wishart prior to check the sensitivity of the results. The third model was a multinomial model where the test results were modeled as multinomial random variables. All three models can include specific imaging techniques as covariates in order to compare performance. Vague normal priors were assigned to the coefficients of the covariates. The computations were carried out using the 'Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling' implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques. We investigated the properties of the three proposed models through extensive simulation studies. We also applied these models to a previously published meta-analysis dataset on cervical cancer as well as to an unpublished melanoma dataset. In general, our findings show that the point estimates of sensitivity and specificity were consistent among Bayesian and frequentist bivariate normal and binomial models. However, in the simulation studies, the estimates of the correlation coefficient from Bayesian bivariate models are not as good as those obtained from frequentist estimation regardless of which prior distribution was used for the covariance matrix. The Bayesian multinomial model consistently underestimated the sensitivity and specificity regardless of the sample size and correlation coefficient. In conclusion, the Bayesian bivariate binomial model provides the most flexible framework for future applications because of its following strengths: (1) it facilitates direct comparison between different tests; (2) it captures the variability in both sensitivity and specificity simultaneously as well as the intercorrelation between the two; and (3) it can be directly applied to sparse data without ad hoc correction. ^

New methods for quantification and analysis of quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction data

Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is a sensitive gene quantitation method that has been widely used in the biological and biomedical fields. The currently used methods for PCR data analysis, including the threshold cycle (CT) method, linear and non-linear model fitting methods, all require subtracting background fluorescence. However, the removal of background fluorescence is usually inaccurate, and therefore can distort results. Here, we propose a new method, the taking-difference linear regression method, to overcome this limitation. Briefly, for each two consecutive PCR cycles, we subtracted the fluorescence in the former cycle from that in the later cycle, transforming the n cycle raw data into n-1 cycle data. Then linear regression was applied to the natural logarithm of the transformed data. Finally, amplification efficiencies and the initial DNA molecular numbers were calculated for each PCR run. To evaluate this new method, we compared it in terms of accuracy and precision with the original linear regression method with three background corrections, being the mean of cycles 1-3, the mean of cycles 3-7, and the minimum. Three criteria, including threshold identification, max R2, and max slope, were employed to search for target data points. Considering that PCR data are time series data, we also applied linear mixed models. Collectively, when the threshold identification criterion was applied and when the linear mixed model was adopted, the taking-difference linear regression method was superior as it gave an accurate estimation of initial DNA amount and a reasonable estimation of PCR amplification efficiencies. When the criteria of max R2 and max slope were used, the original linear regression method gave an accurate estimation of initial DNA amount. Overall, the taking-difference linear regression method avoids the error in subtracting an unknown background and thus it is theoretically more accurate and reliable. This method is easy to perform and the taking-difference strategy can be extended to all current methods for qPCR data analysis.^