Computational Techniques for Spatial Logistic Regression with Large Datasets

In epidemiological work, outcomes are frequently non-normal, sample sizes may be large, and effects are often small. To relate health outcomes to geographic risk factors, fast and powerful methods for fitting spatial models, particularly for non-normal data, are required. We focus on binary outcomes, with the risk surface a smooth function of space. We compare penalized likelihood models, including the penalized quasi-likelihood (PQL) approach, and Bayesian models based on fit, speed, and ease of implementation. A Bayesian model using a spectral basis representation of the spatial surface provides the best tradeoff of sensitivity and specificity in simulations, detecting real spatial features while limiting overfitting and being more efficient computationally than other Bayesian approaches. One of the contributions of this work is further development of this underused representation. The spectral basis model outperforms the penalized likelihood methods, which are prone to overfitting, but is slower to fit and not as easily implemented. Conclusions based on a real dataset of cancer cases in Taiwan are similar albeit less conclusive with respect to comparing the approaches. The success of the spectral basis with binary data and similar results with count data suggest that it may be generally useful in spatial models and more complicated hierarchical models.

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.

Model Checking for ROC Regression Analysis

The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve is a prominent tool for characterizing the accuracy of continuous diagnostic test. To account for factors that might invluence the test accuracy, various ROC regression methods have been proposed. However, as in any regression analysis, when the assumed models do not fit the data well, these methods may render invalid and misleading results. To date practical model checking techniques suitable for validating existing ROC regression models are not yet available. In this paper, we develop cumulative residual based procedures to graphically and numerically assess the goodness-of-fit for some commonly used ROC regression models, and show how specific components of these models can be examined within this framework. We derive asymptotic null distributions for the residual process and discuss resampling procedures to approximate these distributions in practice. We illustrate our methods with a dataset from the Cystic Fibrosis registry.

Evaluating Prediction Rules for t-Year Survivors With Censored Regression Models

Suppose that we are interested in establishing simple, but reliable rules for predicting future t-year survivors via censored regression models. In this article, we present inference procedures for evaluating such binary classification rules based on various prediction precision measures quantified by the overall misclassification rate, sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. Specifically, under various working models we derive consistent estimators for the above measures via substitution and cross validation estimation procedures. Furthermore, we provide large sample approximations to the distributions of these nonsmooth estimators without assuming that the working model is correctly specified. Confidence intervals, for example, for the difference of the precision measures between two competing rules can then be constructed. All the proposals are illustrated with two real examples and their finite sample properties are evaluated via a simulation study.

Limitations of Remotely-sensed Aerosol as a Spatial Proxy for Fine Particulate Matter

Recent research highlights the promise of remotely-sensed aerosol optical depth (AOD) as a proxy for ground-level PM2.5. Particular interest lies in the information on spatial heterogeneity potentially provided by AOD, with important application to estimating and monitoring pollution exposure for public health purposes. Given the temporal and spatio-temporal correlations reported between AOD and PM2.5 , it is tempting to interpret the spatial patterns in AOD as reflecting patterns in PM2.5 . Here we find only limited spatial associations of AOD from three satellite retrievals with PM2.5 over the eastern U.S. at the daily and yearly levels in 2004. We then use statistical modeling to show that the patterns in monthly average AOD poorly reflect patterns in PM2.5 because of systematic, spatially-correlated error in AOD as a proxy for PM2.5 . Furthermore, when we include AOD as a predictor of monthly PM2.5 in a statistical prediction model, AOD provides little additional information to improve predictions of PM2.5 when included in a model that already accounts for land use, emission sources, meteorology and regional variability. These results suggest caution in using spatial variation in AOD to stand in for spatial variation in ground-level PM2.5 in epidemiological analyses and indicate that when PM2.5 monitoring is available, careful statistical modeling outperforms the use of AOD.