Statistical methods for ordered categorical data based on a constrained odds model

The proportional odds model provides a powerful tool for analysing ordered categorical data and setting sample size, although for many clinical trials its validity is questionable. The purpose of this paper is to present a new class of constrained odds models which includes the proportional odds model. The efficient score and Fisher's information are derived from the profile likelihood for the constrained odds model. These results are new even for the special case of proportional odds where the resulting statistics define the Mann-Whitney test. A strategy is described involving selecting one of these models in advance, requiring assumptions as strong as those underlying proportional odds, but allowing a choice of such models. The accuracy of the new procedure and its power are evaluated.

Active-control trials with binary data: a comparison of methods for testing superiority or non-inferiority using the odds ratio

This paper considers methods for testing for superiority or non-inferiority in active-control trials with binary data, when the relative treatment effect is expressed as an odds ratio. Three asymptotic tests for the log-odds ratio based on the unconditional binary likelihood are presented, namely the likelihood ratio, Wald and score tests. All three tests can be implemented straightforwardly in standard statistical software packages, as can the corresponding confidence intervals. Simulations indicate that the three alternatives are similar in terms of the Type I error, with values close to the nominal level. However, when the non-inferiority margin becomes large, the score test slightly exceeds the nominal level. In general, the highest power is obtained from the score test, although all three tests are similar and the observed differences in power are not of practical importance. Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Weighing up the ODDs: options, development and diversification

The growing trend of development and diversification in the British countryside stems from three main causes: the decline in farm incomes, the growing influx of non-agricultural commerce into rural areas and a change in planning policies. Even before the foot and mouth disaster, farm incomes have been in decline over the last five years, falling by as much as 90% overall in that period according to the figures issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). Farmers have responded to this situation in many ways, but notably through diversification. This paper examines some of the options available.

Sample size considerations in active-control non-inferiority trials with binary data based on the odds ratio

This paper presents an approximate closed form sample size formula for determining non-inferiority in active-control trials with binary data. We use the odds-ratio as the measure of the relative treatment effect, derive the sample size formula based on the score test and compare it with a second, well-known formula based on the Wald test. Both closed form formulae are compared with simulations based on the likelihood ratio test. Within the range of parameter values investigated, the score test closed form formula is reasonably accurate when non-inferiority margins are based on odds-ratios of about 0.5 or above and when the magnitude of the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis lies between about 1 and 2.5. The accuracy generally decreases as the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis moves upwards from 1. As the non-inferiority margin odds ratio decreases from 0.5, the score test closed form formula increasingly overestimates the sample size irrespective of the magnitude of the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis. The Wald test closed form formula is also reasonably accurate in the cases where the score test closed form formula works well. Outside these scenarios, the Wald test closed form formula can either underestimate or overestimate the sample size, depending on the magnitude of the non-inferiority margin odds ratio and the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis. Although neither approximation is accurate for all cases, both approaches lead to satisfactory sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials with binary data where the odds ratio is the parameter of interest.

Comparação entre a estimativa de razão de chances gerada pelo modelo de ODDS proporcionais com a razão de chances generalizada

Resumo não disponível.

Tests of proportional hazards and proportional odds models for grouped survival data

In this paper, we derive score test statistics to discriminate between proportional hazards and proportional odds models for grouped survival data. These models are embedded within a power family transformation in order to obtain the score tests. In simple cases, some small-sample results are obtained for the score statistics using Monte Carlo simulations. Score statistics have distributions well approximated by the chi-squared distribution. Real examples illustrate the proposed tests.

A note on the use of the generalized odds ratio in meta-analysis of association studies involving bi- and tri-allelic polymorphisms

Abstract Background The generalized odds ratio (GOR) was recently suggested as a genetic model-free measure for association studies. However, its properties were not extensively investigated. We used Monte Carlo simulations to investigate type-I error rates, power and bias in both effect size and between-study variance estimates of meta-analyses using the GOR as a summary effect, and compared these results to those obtained by usual approaches of model specification. We further applied the GOR in a real meta-analysis of three genome-wide association studies in Alzheimer's disease. Findings For bi-allelic polymorphisms, the GOR performs virtually identical to a standard multiplicative model of analysis (e.g. per-allele odds ratio) for variants acting multiplicatively, but augments slightly the power to detect variants with a dominant mode of action, while reducing the probability to detect recessive variants. Although there were differences among the GOR and usual approaches in terms of bias and type-I error rates, both simulation- and real data-based results provided little indication that these differences will be substantial in practice for meta-analyses involving bi-allelic polymorphisms. However, the use of the GOR may be slightly more powerful for the synthesis of data from tri-allelic variants, particularly when susceptibility alleles are less common in the populations (≤10%). This gain in power may depend on knowledge of the direction of the effects. Conclusions For the synthesis of data from bi-allelic variants, the GOR may be regarded as a multiplicative-like model of analysis. The use of the GOR may be slightly more powerful in the tri-allelic case, particularly when susceptibility alleles are less common in the populations.

Methods to convert continuous outcomes into odds ratios of treatment response and numbers needed to treat: meta-epidemiological study

Clinicians find standardized mean differences (SMDs) calculated from continuous outcomes difficult to interpret. Our objective was to determine the performance of methods in converting SMDs or means to odds ratios of treatment response and numbers needed to treat (NNTs) as more intuitive measures of treatment effect.

What sets the odds of winning and losing?

Social experience influences the outcome of conflicts such that winners are more likely to win again and losers will more likely lose again, even against different opponents. Although winner and loser effects prevail throughout the animal kingdom and crucially influence social structures, the ultimate and proximate causes for their existence remain unknown. We propose here that two hypotheses are particularly important among the potential adaptive explanations: the 'social-cue hypothesis', which assumes that victory and defeat leave traces that affect the decisions of subsequent opponents; and the 'self-assessment hypothesis', which assumes that winners and losers gain information about their own relative fighting ability in the population. We discuss potential methodologies for experimental tests of the adaptive nature of winner and loser effects.

Limitations of the Odds Ratio in Gauging the Performance of a Diagnostic or Prognostic Marker

A marker that is strongly associated with outcome (or disease) is often assumed to be effective for classifying individuals according to their current or future outcome. However, for this to be true, the associated odds ratio must be of a magnitude rarely seen in epidemiological studies. An illustration of the relationship between odds ratios and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves shows, for example, that a marker with an odds ratio as high as 3 is in fact a very poor classification tool. If a marker identifies 10 percent of controls as positive (false positives) and has an odds ratio of 3, then it will only correctly identify 25 percent of cases as positive (true positives). Moreover, the authors illustrate that a single measure of association such as an odds ratio does not meaningfully describe a marker’s ability to classify subjects. Appropriate statistical methods for assessing and reporting the classification power of a marker are described. The serious pitfalls of using more traditional methods based on parameters in logistic regression models are illustrated.