Increasing Statistical Power in Mediation Models Without Increasing Sample Size.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fritz MS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4836861 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and Objectives:Researchers typically use Cohen's guidelines of Pearson's r = .10, .30, and .50, and Cohen's d = 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 to interpret observed effect sizes as small, medium, or large, respectively. However, these guidelines were not based on quantitative estimates and are only recommended if field-specific estimates are unknown. This study investigated the distribution of effect sizes in both individual differences research and group differences research in gerontology to provide estimates of effect sizes in the field. Research Design and Methods:Effect sizes (Pearson's r, Cohen's d, and Hedges' g) were extracted from meta-analyses published in 10 top-ranked gerontology journals. The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ranks were calculated for Pearson's r (individual differences) and Cohen's d or Hedges' g (group differences) values as indicators of small, medium, and large effects. A priori power analyses were conducted for sample size calculations given the observed effect size estimates. Results:Effect sizes of Pearson's r = .12, .20, and .32 for individual differences research and Hedges' g = 0.16, 0.38, and 0.76 for group differences research were interpreted as small, medium, and large effects in gerontology. Discussion and Implications:Cohen's guidelines appear to overestimate effect sizes in gerontology. Researchers are encouraged to use Pearson's r = .10, .20, and .30, and Cohen's d or Hedges' g = 0.15, 0.40, and 0.75 to interpret small, medium, and large effects in gerontology, and recruit larger samples.
| S-EPMC6736231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Infant research is hard. It is difficult, expensive, and time consuming to identify, recruit and test infants. As a result, ours is a field of small sample sizes. Many studies using infant looking time as a measure have samples of 8 to 12 infants per cell, and studies with more than 24 infants per cell are uncommon. This paper examines the effect of such sample sizes on statistical power and the conclusions drawn from infant looking time research. An examination of the state of the current literature suggests that most published looking time studies have low power, which leads in the long run to an increase in both false positive and false negative results. Three data sets with large samples (>30 infants) were used to simulate experiments with smaller sample sizes; 1000 random subsamples of 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 infants from the overall samples were selected, making it possible to examine the systematic effect of sample size on the results. This approach revealed that despite clear results with the original large samples, the results with smaller subsamples were highly variable, yielding both false positive and false negative outcomes. Finally, a number of emerging possible solutions are discussed.
| S-EPMC5618719 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Segmentation algorithms are typically evaluated by comparison to an accepted reference standard. The cost of generating accurate reference standards for medical image segmentation can be substantial. Since the study cost and the likelihood of detecting a clinically meaningful difference in accuracy both depend on the size and on the quality of the study reference standard, balancing these trade-offs supports the efficient use of research resources. In this work, we derive a statistical power calculation that enables researchers to estimate the appropriate sample size to detect clinically meaningful differences in segmentation accuracy (i.e. the proportion of voxels matching the reference standard) between two algorithms. Furthermore, we derive a formula to relate reference standard errors to their effect on the sample sizes of studies using lower-quality (but potentially more affordable and practically available) reference standards. The accuracy of the derived sample size formula was estimated through Monte Carlo simulation, demonstrating, with 95% confidence, a predicted statistical power within 4% of simulated values across a range of model parameters. This corresponds to sample size errors of less than 4 subjects and errors in the detectable accuracy difference less than 0.6%. The applicability of the formula to real-world data was assessed using bootstrap resampling simulations for pairs of algorithms from the PROMISE12 prostate MR segmentation challenge data set. The model predicted the simulated power for the majority of algorithm pairs within 4% for simulated experiments using a high-quality reference standard and within 6% for simulated experiments using a low-quality reference standard. A case study, also based on the PROMISE12 data, illustrates using the formulae to evaluate whether to use a lower-quality reference standard in a prostate segmentation study.
| S-EPMC5666910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It was suggested that Bayesian methods have potential for increasing power in mediation analysis (Koopman, Howe, Hollenbeck, & Sin, 2015; Yuan & MacKinnon, 2009). This paper compares the power of Bayesian credibility intervals for the mediated effect to the power of normal theory, distribution of the product, percentile, and bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals at N? 200. Bayesian methods with diffuse priors have power comparable to the distribution of the product and bootstrap methods, and Bayesian methods with informative priors had the most power. Varying degrees of precision of prior distributions were also examined. Increased precision led to greater power only when N? 100 and the effects were small, N < 60 and the effects were large, and N < 200 and the effects were medium. An empirical example from psychology illustrated a Bayesian analysis of the single mediator model from prior selection to interpreting results.
| S-EPMC5898829 | biostudies-other
Project description:Despite the popularity of the general linear mixed model for data analysis, power and sample size methods and software are not generally available for commonly used test statistics and reference distributions. Statisticians resort to simulations with homegrown and uncertified programs or rough approximations which are misaligned with the data analysis. For a wide range of designs with longitudinal and clustering features, we provide accurate power and sample size approximations for inference about fixed effects in linear models we call reversible. We show that under widely applicable conditions, the general linear mixed-model Wald test has non-central distributions equivalent to well-studied multivariate tests. In turn, exact and approximate power and sample size results for the multivariate Hotelling-Lawley test provide exact and approximate power and sample size results for the mixed-model Wald test. The calculations are easily computed with a free, open-source product that requires only a web browser to use. Commercial software can be used for a smaller range of reversible models. Simple approximations allow accounting for modest amounts of missing data. A real-world example illustrates the methods. Sample size results are presented for a multicenter study on pregnancy. The proposed study, an extension of a funded project, has clustering within clinic. Exchangeability among participants allows averaging across them to remove the clustering structure. The resulting simplified design is a single level longitudinal study. Multivariate methods for power provide an approximate sample size. All proofs and inputs for the example are in the Supplementary Materials (available online).
| S-EPMC7009022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Admixed populations result from recent admixture of two or more ancestral populations with divergent allele frequencies. The genome of each admixed individual is a mosaic of haplotypes inherited from the ancestral populations. Despite the substantial work to assess power and sample size requirements for association mapping in genetically homogeneous populations of European ancestry, power and sample size estimation methods for mapping genes in genetically heterogeneous admixed populations such as African Americans are lacking. Admixture mapping is a method that traces the ancestral origin of disease-susceptibility genetic loci in the admixed population. We developed AdmixPower, a freely available tool set based on the open-source R software, to perform power and sample size analysis for genetically heterogeneous admixed populations considering continuous or dichotomous outcomes with a case-only or case-control study design. AdmixPower can be used to compute the sample size required to achieve investigator-specified statistical power under several key parameters including ancestry odds ratio, genotype risk ratio, parental risk ratio, an underlying genetic risk model, trait type, and admixture model (hybrid-isolation or continuous gene flow model). We demonstrate that differences in the key parameters in the admixed population results in substantial differences in the sample size required to achieve adequate power in admixture mapping studies. Our tool provides a resource for researchers to develop a strategy to minimize cost and maximize the success of identifying disease-susceptibility loci in an admixed population. R code used in the sample size and power analysis is freely available from https://research.cchmc.org/mershalab/Tools.html.
| S-EPMC5676228 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Backgrounddata generated using 'omics' technologies are characterized by high dimensionality, where the number of features measured per subject vastly exceeds the number of subjects in the study. In this paper, we consider issues relevant in the design of biomedical studies in which the goal is the discovery of a subset of features and an associated algorithm that can predict a binary outcome, such as disease status. We compare the performance of four commonly used classifiers (K-Nearest Neighbors, Prediction Analysis for Microarrays, Random Forests and Support Vector Machines) in high-dimensionality data settings. We evaluate the effects of varying levels of signal-to-noise ratio in the dataset, imbalance in class distribution and choice of metric for quantifying performance of the classifier. To guide study design, we present a summary of the key characteristics of 'omics' data profiled in several human or animal model experiments utilizing high-content mass spectrometry and multiplexed immunoassay based techniques.Resultsthe analysis of data from seven 'omics' studies revealed that the average magnitude of effect size observed in human studies was markedly lower when compared to that in animal studies. The data measured in human studies were characterized by higher biological variation and the presence of outliers. The results from simulation studies indicated that the classifier Prediction Analysis for Microarrays (PAM) had the highest power when the class conditional feature distributions were Gaussian and outcome distributions were balanced. Random Forests was optimal when feature distributions were skewed and when class distributions were unbalanced. We provide a free open-source R statistical software library (MVpower) that implements the simulation strategy proposed in this paper.Conclusionno single classifier had optimal performance under all settings. Simulation studies provide useful guidance for the design of biomedical studies involving high-dimensionality data.
| S-EPMC2942858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSample size planning for longitudinal data is crucial when designing mediation studies because sufficient statistical power is not only required in grant applications and peer-reviewed publications, but is essential to reliable research results. However, sample size determination is not straightforward for mediation analysis of longitudinal design.MethodsTo facilitate planning the sample size for longitudinal mediation studies with a multilevel mediation model, this article provides the sample size required to achieve 80% power by simulations under various sizes of the mediation effect, within-subject correlations and numbers of repeated measures. The sample size calculation is based on three commonly used mediation tests: Sobel's method, distribution of product method and the bootstrap method.ResultsAmong the three methods of testing the mediation effects, Sobel's method required the largest sample size to achieve 80% power. Bootstrapping and the distribution of the product method performed similarly and were more powerful than Sobel's method, as reflected by the relatively smaller sample sizes. For all three methods, the sample size required to achieve 80% power depended on the value of the ICC (i.e., within-subject correlation). A larger value of ICC typically required a larger sample size to achieve 80% power. Simulation results also illustrated the advantage of the longitudinal study design. The sample size tables for most encountered scenarios in practice have also been published for convenient use.ConclusionsExtensive simulations study showed that the distribution of the product method and bootstrapping method have superior performance to the Sobel's method, but the product method was recommended to use in practice in terms of less computation time load compared to the bootstrapping method. A R package has been developed for the product method of sample size determination in mediation longitudinal study design.
| S-EPMC5870539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The generalized linear mixed model (GLIMMIX) provides a powerful technique to model correlated outcomes with different types of distributions. The model can now be easily implemented with SAS PROC GLIMMIX in version 9.1. For binary outcomes, linearization methods of penalized quasi-likelihood (PQL) or marginal quasi-likelihood (MQL) provide relatively accurate variance estimates for fixed effects. Using GLIMMIX based on these linearization methods, we derived formulas for power and sample size calculations for longitudinal designs with attrition over time. We found that the power and sample size estimates depend on the within-subject correlation and the size of random effects. In this article, we present tables of minimum sample sizes commonly used to test hypotheses for longitudinal studies. A simulation study was used to compare the results. We also provide a Web link to the SAS macro that we developed to compute power and sample sizes for correlated binary outcomes.
| S-EPMC3737998 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Determining sample size requirements for structural equation modeling (SEM) is a challenge often faced by investigators, peer reviewers, and grant writers. Recent years have seen a large increase in SEMs in the behavioral science literature, but consideration of sample size requirements for applied SEMs often relies on outdated rules-of-thumb. This study used Monte Carlo data simulation techniques to evaluate sample size requirements for common applied SEMs. Across a series of simulations, we systematically varied key model properties, including number of indicators and factors, magnitude of factor loadings and path coefficients, and amount of missing data. We investigated how changes in these parameters affected sample size requirements with respect to statistical power, bias in the parameter estimates, and overall solution propriety. Results revealed a range of sample size requirements (i.e., from 30 to 460 cases), meaningful patterns of association between parameters and sample size, and highlight the limitations of commonly cited rules-of-thumb. The broad "lessons learned" for determining SEM sample size requirements are discussed.
| S-EPMC4334479 | biostudies-literature