Dataset Information

Statistical Methods for Unusual Count Data: Examples From Studies of Microchimerism.

ABSTRACT: Natural acquisition of small amounts of foreign cells or DNA, referred to as microchimerism, occurs primarily through maternal-fetal exchange during pregnancy. Microchimerism can persist long-term and has been associated with both beneficial and adverse human health outcomes. Quantitative microchimerism data present challenges for statistical analysis, including a skewed distribution, excess zero values, and occasional large values. Methods for comparing microchimerism levels across groups while controlling for covariates are not well established. We compared statistical models for quantitative microchimerism values, applied to simulated data sets and 2 observed data sets, to make recommendations for analytic practice. Modeling the level of quantitative microchimerism as a rate via Poisson or negative binomial model with the rate of detection defined as a count of microchimerism genome equivalents per total cell equivalents tested utilizes all available data and facilitates a comparison of rates between groups. We found that both the marginalized zero-inflated Poisson model and the negative binomial model can provide unbiased and consistent estimates of the overall association of exposure or study group with microchimerism detection rates. The negative binomial model remains the more accessible of these 2 approaches; thus, we conclude that the negative binomial model may be most appropriate for analyzing quantitative microchimerism data.

SUBMITTER: Guthrie KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5141948 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Pooling biomarker data across multiple studies allows for examination of a wider exposure range than generally possible in individual studies, evaluation of population subgroups and disease subtypes with more statistical power, and more precise estimation of biomarker-disease associations. However, circulating biomarker measurements often require calibration to a single reference assay prior to pooling due to assay and laboratory variability across studies. We propose several methods for calibrating and combining biomarker data from nested case-control studies when reference assay data are obtained from a subset of controls in each contributing study. Specifically, we describe a two-stage calibration method and two aggregated calibration methods, named the internalized and full calibration methods, to evaluate the main effect of the biomarker exposure on disease risk and whether that association is modified by a potential covariate. The internalized method uses the reference laboratory measurement in the analysis when available and otherwise uses the estimated value derived from calibration models. The full calibration method uses calibrated biomarker measurements for all subjects, including those with reference laboratory measurements. Under the two-stage method, investigators complete study-specific analyses in the first stage followed by meta-analysis in the second stage. Our results demonstrate that the full calibration method is the preferred aggregated approach to minimize bias in point estimates. We also observe that the two-stage and full calibration methods provide similar effect and variance estimates but that their variance estimates are slightly larger than those from the internalized approach. As an illustrative example, we apply the three methods in a pooling project of nested case-control studies to evaluate (i) the association between circulating vitamin D levels and risk of stroke and (ii) how body mass index modifies the association between circulating vitamin D levels and risk of cardiovascular disease.

Project description:BackgroundRecent literature on the comparison of machine learning methods has raised questions about the neutrality, unbiasedness and utility of many comparative studies. Reporting of results on favourable datasets and sampling error in the estimated performance measures based on single samples are thought to be the major sources of bias in such comparisons. Better performance in one or a few instances does not necessarily imply so on an average or on a population level and simulation studies may be a better alternative for objectively comparing the performances of machine learning algorithms.MethodsWe compare the classification performance of a number of important and widely used machine learning algorithms, namely the Random Forests (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) and k-Nearest Neighbour (kNN). Using massively parallel processing on high-performance supercomputers, we compare the generalisation errors at various combinations of levels of several factors: number of features, training sample size, biological variation, experimental variation, effect size, replication and correlation between features.ResultsFor smaller number of correlated features, number of features not exceeding approximately half the sample size, LDA was found to be the method of choice in terms of average generalisation errors as well as stability (precision) of error estimates. SVM (with RBF kernel) outperforms LDA as well as RF and kNN by a clear margin as the feature set gets larger provided the sample size is not too small (at least 20). The performance of kNN also improves as the number of features grows and outplays that of LDA and RF unless the data variability is too high and/or effect sizes are too small. RF was found to outperform only kNN in some instances where the data are more variable and have smaller effect sizes, in which cases it also provide more stable error estimates than kNN and LDA. Applications to a number of real datasets supported the findings from the simulation study.

Project description:BackgroundA considerable amount of various types of data have been collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, the analysis and understanding of which have been indispensable for curbing the spread of the disease. As the pandemic moves to an endemic state, the data collected during the pandemic will continue to be rich sources for further studying and understanding the impacts of the pandemic on various aspects of our society. On the other hand, naïve release and sharing of the information can be associated with serious privacy concerns.MethodsWe use three common but distinct data types collected during the pandemic (case surveillance tabular data, case location data, and contact tracing networks) to illustrate the publication and sharing of granular information and individual-level pandemic data in a privacy-preserving manner. We leverage and build upon the concept of differential privacy to generate and release privacy-preserving data for each data type. We investigate the inferential utility of privacy-preserving information through simulation studies at different levels of privacy guarantees and demonstrate the approaches in real-life data. All the approaches employed in the study are straightforward to apply.ResultsThe empirical studies in all three data cases suggest that privacy-preserving results based on the differentially privately sanitized data can be similar to the original results at a reasonably small privacy loss ([Formula: see text]). Statistical inferences based on sanitized data using the multiple synthesis technique also appear valid, with nominal coverage of 95% confidence intervals when there is no noticeable bias in point estimation. When [Formula: see text] and the sample size is not large enough, some privacy-preserving results are subject to bias, partially due to the bounding applied to sanitized data as a post-processing step to satisfy practical data constraints.ConclusionsOur study generates statistical evidence on the practical feasibility of sharing pandemic data with privacy guarantees and on how to balance the statistical utility of released information during this process.

Dataset Information

Statistical Methods for Unusual Count Data: Examples From Studies of Microchimerism.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets