A novel method for evaluating an interaction effect of correlated continuous covariates in a linear model

Interaction effect is an important scientific interest for many areas of research. Common approach for investigating the interaction effect of two continuous covariates on a response variable is through a cross-product term in multiple linear regression. In epidemiological studies, the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) type of method has also been utilized to examine the interaction effect by replacing the continuous covariates with their discretized levels. However, the implications of model assumptions of either approach have not been examined and the statistical validation has only focused on the general method, not specifically for the interaction effect.^ In this dissertation, we investigated the validity of both approaches based on the mathematical assumptions for non-skewed data. We showed that linear regression may not be an appropriate model when the interaction effect exists because it implies a highly skewed distribution for the response variable. We also showed that the normality and constant variance assumptions required by ANOVA are not satisfied in the model where the continuous covariates are replaced with their discretized levels. Therefore, naïve application of ANOVA method may lead to an incorrect conclusion. ^ Given the problems identified above, we proposed a novel method modifying from the traditional ANOVA approach to rigorously evaluate the interaction effect. The analytical expression of the interaction effect was derived based on the conditional distribution of the response variable given the discretized continuous covariates. A testing procedure that combines the p-values from each level of the discretized covariates was developed to test the overall significance of the interaction effect. According to the simulation study, the proposed method is more powerful then the least squares regression and the ANOVA method in detecting the interaction effect when data comes from a trivariate normal distribution. The proposed method was applied to a dataset from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) stroke trial, and baseline age-by-weight interaction effect was found significant in predicting the change from baseline in NIHSS at Month-3 among patients received t-PA therapy.^

Selection bias and the cross-validation of regression models for prediction

Strategies are compared for the development of a linear regression model with stochastic (multivariate normal) regressor variables and the subsequent assessment of its predictive ability. Bias and mean squared error of four estimators of predictive performance are evaluated in simulated samples of 32 population correlation matrices. Models including all of the available predictors are compared with those obtained using selected subsets. The subset selection procedures investigated include two stopping rules, C$\sb{\rm p}$ and S$\sb{\rm p}$, each combined with an 'all possible subsets' or 'forward selection' of variables. The estimators of performance utilized include parametric (MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$) and non-parametric (PRESS) assessments in the entire sample, and two data splitting estimates restricted to a random or balanced (Snee's DUPLEX) 'validation' half sample. The simulations were performed as a designed experiment, with population correlation matrices representing a broad range of data structures.^ The techniques examined for subset selection do not generally result in improved predictions relative to the full model. Approaches using 'forward selection' result in slightly smaller prediction errors and less biased estimators of predictive accuracy than 'all possible subsets' approaches but no differences are detected between the performances of C$\sb{\rm p}$ and S$\sb{\rm p}$. In every case, prediction errors of models obtained by subset selection in either of the half splits exceed those obtained using all predictors and the entire sample.^ Only the random split estimator is conditionally (on $\\beta$) unbiased, however MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$ is unbiased on average and PRESS is nearly so in unselected (fixed form) models. When subset selection techniques are used, MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$ and PRESS always underestimate prediction errors, by as much as 27 percent (on average) in small samples. Despite their bias, the mean squared errors (MSE) of these estimators are at least 30 percent less than that of the unbiased random split estimator. The DUPLEX split estimator suffers from large MSE as well as bias, and seems of little value within the context of stochastic regressor variables.^ To maximize predictive accuracy while retaining a reliable estimate of that accuracy, it is recommended that the entire sample be used for model development, and a leave-one-out statistic (e.g. PRESS) be used for assessment. ^