Evaluation of the accuracy of multilevel analysis parameter estimates for intra-cluster correlation in correlated binary data

Many studies in biostatistics deal with binary data. Some of these studies involve correlated observations, which can complicate the analysis of the resulting data. Studies of this kind typically arise when a high degree of commonality exists between test subjects. If there exists a natural hierarchy in the data, multilevel analysis is an appropriate tool for the analysis. Two examples are the measurements on identical twins, or the study of symmetrical organs or appendages such as in the case of ophthalmic studies. Although this type of matching appears ideal for the purposes of comparison, analysis of the resulting data while ignoring the effect of intra-cluster correlation has been shown to produce biased results.^ This paper will explore the use of multilevel modeling of simulated binary data with predetermined levels of correlation. Data will be generated using the Beta-Binomial method with varying degrees of correlation between the lower level observations. The data will be analyzed using the multilevel software package MlwiN (Woodhouse, et al, 1995). Comparisons between the specified intra-cluster correlation of these data and the estimated correlations, using multilevel analysis, will be used to examine the accuracy of this technique in analyzing this type of data. ^

Outcome-based adaptive randomization for binary data in clinical trials---Compare and contrast

Monte Carlo simulation has been conducted to investigate parameter estimation and hypothesis testing in some well known adaptive randomization procedures. The four urn models studied are Randomized Play-the-Winner (RPW), Randomized Pôlya Urn (RPU), Birth and Death Urn with Immigration (BDUI), and Drop-the-Loses Urn (DL). Two sequential estimation methods, the sequential maximum likelihood estimation (SMLE) and the doubly adaptive biased coin design (DABC), are simulated at three optimal allocation targets that minimize the expected number of failures under the assumption of constant variance of simple difference (RSIHR), relative risk (ORR), and odds ratio (OOR) respectively. Log likelihood ratio test and three Wald-type tests (simple difference, log of relative risk, log of odds ratio) are compared in different adaptive procedures. ^ Simulation results indicates that although RPW is slightly better in assigning more patients to the superior treatment, the DL method is considerably less variable and the test statistics have better normality. When compared with SMLE, DABC has slightly higher overall response rate with lower variance, but has larger bias and variance in parameter estimation. Additionally, the test statistics in SMLE have better normality and lower type I error rate, and the power of hypothesis testing is more comparable with the equal randomization. Usually, RSIHR has the highest power among the 3 optimal allocation ratios. However, the ORR allocation has better power and lower type I error rate when the log of relative risk is the test statistics. The number of expected failures in ORR is smaller than RSIHR. It is also shown that the simple difference of response rates has the worst normality among all 4 test statistics. The power of hypothesis test is always inflated when simple difference is used. On the other hand, the normality of the log likelihood ratio test statistics is robust against the change of adaptive randomization procedures. ^

Design and analysis for three level hierarchical structures with count response

In numerous intervention studies and education field trials, random assignment to treatment occurs in clusters rather than at the level of observation. This departure of random assignment of units may be due to logistics, political feasibility, or ecological validity. Data within the same cluster or grouping are often correlated. Application of traditional regression techniques, which assume independence between observations, to clustered data produce consistent parameter estimates. However such estimators are often inefficient as compared to methods which incorporate the clustered nature of the data into the estimation procedure (Neuhaus 1993).1 Multilevel models, also known as random effects or random components models, can be used to account for the clustering of data by estimating higher level, or group, as well as lower level, or individual variation. Designing a study, in which the unit of observation is nested within higher level groupings, requires the determination of sample sizes at each level. This study investigates the design and analysis of various sampling strategies for a 3-level repeated measures design on the parameter estimates when the outcome variable of interest follows a Poisson distribution. ^ Results study suggest that second order PQL estimation produces the least biased estimates in the 3-level multilevel Poisson model followed by first order PQL and then second and first order MQL. The MQL estimates of both fixed and random parameters are generally satisfactory when the level 2 and level 3 variation is less than 0.10. However, as the higher level error variance increases, the MQL estimates become increasingly biased. If convergence of the estimation algorithm is not obtained by PQL procedure and higher level error variance is large, the estimates may be significantly biased. In this case bias correction techniques such as bootstrapping should be considered as an alternative procedure. For larger sample sizes, those structures with 20 or more units sampled at levels with normally distributed random errors produced more stable estimates with less sampling variance than structures with an increased number of level 1 units. For small sample sizes, sampling fewer units at the level with Poisson variation produces less sampling variation, however this criterion is no longer important when sample sizes are large. ^ 1Neuhaus J (1993). “Estimation efficiency and Tests of Covariate Effects with Clustered Binary Data”. Biometrics , 49, 989–996^

SURVIVAL PREDICTION FOR BRAIN TUMOR PATIENTS USING GENE EXPRESSION DATA

Brain tumor is one of the most aggressive types of cancer in humans, with an estimated median survival time of 12 months and only 4% of the patients surviving more than 5 years after disease diagnosis. Until recently, brain tumor prognosis has been based only on clinical information such as tumor grade and patient age, but there are reports indicating that molecular profiling of gliomas can reveal subgroups of patients with distinct survival rates. We hypothesize that coupling molecular profiling of brain tumors with clinical information might improve predictions of patient survival time and, consequently, better guide future treatment decisions. In order to evaluate this hypothesis, the general goal of this research is to build models for survival prediction of glioma patients using DNA molecular profiles (U133 Affymetrix gene expression microarrays) along with clinical information. First, a predictive Random Forest model is built for binary outcomes (i.e. short vs. long-term survival) and a small subset of genes whose expression values can be used to predict survival time is selected. Following, a new statistical methodology is developed for predicting time-to-death outcomes using Bayesian ensemble trees. Due to a large heterogeneity observed within prognostic classes obtained by the Random Forest model, prediction can be improved by relating time-to-death with gene expression profile directly. We propose a Bayesian ensemble model for survival prediction which is appropriate for high-dimensional data such as gene expression data. Our approach is based on the ensemble "sum-of-trees" model which is flexible to incorporate additive and interaction effects between genes. We specify a fully Bayesian hierarchical approach and illustrate our methodology for the CPH, Weibull, and AFT survival models. We overcome the lack of conjugacy using a latent variable formulation to model the covariate effects which decreases computation time for model fitting. Also, our proposed models provides a model-free way to select important predictive prognostic markers based on controlling false discovery rates. We compare the performance of our methods with baseline reference survival methods and apply our methodology to an unpublished data set of brain tumor survival times and gene expression data, selecting genes potentially related to the development of the disease under study. A closing discussion compares results obtained by Random Forest and Bayesian ensemble methods under the biological/clinical perspectives and highlights the statistical advantages and disadvantages of the new methodology in the context of DNA microarray data analysis.

Logistic regression with incompletely observed binary

Logistic regression is one of the most important tools in the analysis of epidemiological and clinical data. Such data often contain missing values for one or more variables. Common practice is to eliminate all individuals for whom any information is missing. This deletion approach does not make efficient use of available information and often introduces bias.^ Two methods were developed to estimate logistic regression coefficients for mixed dichotomous and continuous covariates including partially observed binary covariates. The data were assumed missing at random (MAR). One method (PD) used predictive distribution as weight to calculate the average of the logistic regressions performing on all possible values of missing observations, and the second method (RS) used a variant of resampling technique. Additional seven methods were compared with these two approaches in a simulation study. They are: (1) Analysis based on only the complete cases, (2) Substituting the mean of the observed values for the missing value, (3) An imputation technique based on the proportions of observed data, (4) Regressing the partially observed covariates on the remaining continuous covariates, (5) Regressing the partially observed covariates on the remaining continuous covariates conditional on response variable, (6) Regressing the partially observed covariates on the remaining continuous covariates and response variable, and (7) EM algorithm. Both proposed methods showed smaller standard errors (s.e.) for the coefficient involving the partially observed covariate and for the other coefficients as well. However, both methods, especially PD, are computationally demanding; thus for analysis of large data sets with partially observed covariates, further refinement of these approaches is needed. ^