Information bias and lifetime mortality risks of radiation-induced cancer

Additive and multiplicative models of relative risk were used to measure the effect of cancer misclassification and DS86 random errors on lifetime risk projections in the Life Span Study (LSS) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors. The true number of cancer deaths in each stratum of the cancer mortality cross-classification was estimated using sufficient statistics from the EM algorithm. Average survivor doses in the strata were corrected for DS86 random error ($\sigma$ = 0.45) by use of reduction factors. Poisson regression was used to model the corrected and uncorrected mortality rates with covariates for age at-time-of-bombing, age at-time-of-death and gender. Excess risks were in good agreement with risks in RERF Report 11 (Part 2) and the BEIR-V report. Bias due to DS86 random error typically ranged from $-$15% to $-$30% for both sexes, and all sites and models. The total bias, including diagnostic misclassification, of excess risk of nonleukemia for exposure to 1 Sv from age 18 to 65 under the non-constant relative projection model was $-$37.1% for males and $-$23.3% for females. Total excess risks of leukemia under the relative projection model were biased $-$27.1% for males and $-$43.4% for females. Thus, nonleukemia risks for 1 Sv from ages 18 to 85 (DRREF = 2) increased from 1.91%/Sv to 2.68%/Sv among males and from 3.23%/Sv to 4.02%/Sv among females. Leukemia excess risks increased from 0.87%/Sv to 1.10%/Sv among males and from 0.73%/Sv to 1.04%/Sv among females. Bias was dependent on the gender, site, correction method, exposure profile and projection model considered. Future studies that use LSS data for U.S. nuclear workers may be downwardly biased if lifetime risk projections are not adjusted for random and systematic errors. (Supported by U.S. NRC Grant NRC-04-091-02.) ^

Effect of nonnormal random components on level and power in group-randomized trials

The use of group-randomized trials is particularly widespread in the evaluation of health care, educational, and screening strategies. Group-randomized trials represent a subset of a larger class of designs often labeled nested, hierarchical, or multilevel and are characterized by the randomization of intact social units or groups, rather than individuals. The application of random effects models to group-randomized trials requires the specification of fixed and random components of the model. The underlying assumption is usually that these random components are normally distributed. This research is intended to determine if the Type I error rate and power are affected when the assumption of normality for the random component representing the group effect is violated. ^ In this study, simulated data are used to examine the Type I error rate, power, bias and mean squared error of the estimates of the fixed effect and the observed intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) when the random component representing the group effect possess distributions with non-normal characteristics, such as heavy tails or severe skewness. The simulated data are generated with various characteristics (e.g. number of schools per condition, number of students per school, and several within school ICCs) observed in most small, school-based, group-randomized trials. The analysis is carried out using SAS PROC MIXED, Version 6.12, with random effects specified in a random statement and restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation specified. The results from the non-normally distributed data are compared to the results obtained from the analysis of data with similar design characteristics but normally distributed random effects. ^ The results suggest that the violation of the normality assumption for the group component by a skewed or heavy-tailed distribution does not appear to influence the estimation of the fixed effect, Type I error, and power. Negative biases were detected when estimating the sample ICC and dramatically increased in magnitude as the true ICC increased. These biases were not as pronounced when the true ICC was within the range observed in most group-randomized trials (i.e. 0.00 to 0.05). The normally distributed group effect also resulted in bias ICC estimates when the true ICC was greater than 0.05. However, this may be a result of higher correlation within the data. ^