Are your covariates under control? How normalization can re-introduce covariate effects.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pain O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6057994 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We consider a logistic regression model for a binary response where part of its covariates are subject-specific random intercepts and slopes from a large number of longitudinal covariates. These random effect covariates must be estimated from the observed data, and therefore, the model essentially involves errors in covariates. Because of high dimension and high correlation of the random effects, we employ longitudinal principal component analysis to reduce the total number of random effects to some manageable number of random effects. To deal with errors in covariates, we extend the conditional-score equation approach to this moderate dimensional logistic regression model with random effect covariates. To reliably solve the conditional-score equations in moderate/high dimension, we apply a majorization on the first derivative of the conditional-score functions and a penalized estimation by the smoothly clipped absolute deviation. The method was evaluated through a set of simulation studies and applied to a data set with longitudinal cortical thickness of 68 regions of interest to identify biomarkers that are related to dementia transition.
| S-EPMC7654973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The HLA region is considered to be the main genetic risk factor for rheumatoid arthritis. Previous research demonstrated that HLA-DRB1 alleles encoding the shared epitope are specific for disease that is characterized by antibodies to cyclic citrullinated peptides (anti-CCP). In the present study, we incorporated the shared epitope and either anti-CCP antibodies or rheumatoid factor into linkage disequilibrium mapping, to assess the association between the shared epitope or antibodies with the disease gene identified. Incorporating the covariates into the association mapping provides a mechanism 1) to evaluate gene-gene and gene-environment interactions and 2) to dissect the pathways underlying disease induction/progress in quantitative antibodies.
| S-EPMC2795988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In covariate (sub)models of population pharmacokinetic models, most covariates are normalized to the median value; however, for body weight, normalization to 70 kg or 1 kg is often applied. In this article, we illustrate the impact of normalization weight on the precision of population clearance (CLpop) parameter estimates. The influence of normalization weight (70, 1 kg or median weight) on the precision of the CLpop estimate, expressed as relative standard error (RSE), was illustrated using data from a pharmacokinetic study in neonates with a median weight of 2.7 kg. In addition, a simulation study was performed to show the impact of normalization to 70 kg in pharmacokinetic studies with paediatric or obese patients. The RSE of the CLpop parameter estimate in the neonatal dataset was lowest with normalization to median weight (8.1%), compared with normalization to 1 kg (10.5%) or 70 kg (48.8%). Typical clearance (CL) predictions were independent of the normalization weight used. Simulations showed that the increase in RSE of the CLpop estimate with 70 kg normalization was highest in studies with a narrow weight range and a geometric mean weight away from 70 kg. When, instead of normalizing with median weight, a weight outside the observed range is used, the RSE of the CLpop estimate will be inflated, and should therefore not be used for model selection. Instead, established mathematical principles can be used to calculate the RSE of the typical CL (CLTV) at a relevant weight to evaluate the precision of CL predictions.
| S-EPMC6325985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper studies inference for the average treatment effect in randomized controlled trials with covariate-adaptive randomization. Here, by covariate-adaptive randomization, we mean randomization schemes that first stratify according to baseline covariates and then assign treatment status so as to achieve "balance" within each stratum. Our main requirement is that the randomization scheme assigns treatment status within each stratum so that the fraction of units being assigned to treatment within each stratum has a well behaved distribution centered around a proportion ? as the sample size tends to infinity. Such schemes include, for example, Efron's biased-coin design and stratified block randomization. When testing the null hypothesis that the average treatment effect equals a pre-specified value in such settings, we first show the usual two-sample t-test is conservative in the sense that it has limiting rejection probability under the null hypothesis no greater than and typically strictly less than the nominal level. We show, however, that a simple adjustment to the usual standard error of the two-sample t-test leads to a test that is exact in the sense that its limiting rejection probability under the null hypothesis equals the nominal level. Next, we consider the usual t-test (on the coefficient on treatment assignment) in a linear regression of outcomes on treatment assignment and indicators for each of the strata. We show that this test is exact for the important special case of randomization schemes with ?=12 , but is otherwise conservative. We again provide a simple adjustment to the standard errors that yields an exact test more generally. Finally, we study the behavior of a modified version of a permutation test, which we refer to as the covariate-adaptive permutation test, that only permutes treatment status for units within the same stratum. When applied to the usual two-sample t-statistic, we show that this test is exact for randomization schemes with ?=12 and that additionally achieve what we refer to as "strong balance." For randomization schemes with ??12 , this test may have limiting rejection probability under the null hypothesis strictly greater than the nominal level. When applied to a suitably adjusted version of the two-sample t-statistic, however, we show that this test is exact for all randomization schemes that achieve "strong balance," including those with ??12 . A simulation study confirms the practical relevance of our theoretical results. We conclude with recommendations for empirical practice and an empirical illustration·.
| S-EPMC6425946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Under covariate adaptive randomization, the covariate is tied to both randomization and analysis. Misclassification of such covariate will impact the intended treatment assignment; further, it is unclear what the appropriate analysis strategy should be. We explore the impact of such misclassification on the trial's statistical operating characteristics. Simulation scenarios were created based on the misclassification rate and the covariate effect on the outcome. Models including unadjusted, adjusted for the misclassified, or adjusted for the corrected covariate were compared using logistic regression for a binary outcome and Poisson regression for a count outcome. For the binary outcome using logistic regression, type I error can be maintained in the adjusted model, but the test is conservative using an unadjusted model. Power decreased with both increasing covariate effect on the outcome as well as the misclassification rate. Treatment effect estimates were biased towards the null for both the misclassified and unadjusted models. For the count outcome using a Poisson model, covariate misclassification led to inflated type I error probabilities and reduced power in the misclassified and the unadjusted model. The impact of covariate misclassification under covariate-adaptive randomization differs depending on the underlying distribution of the outcome.
| S-EPMC5476516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A major challenge in cancer epidemiologic studies, especially those of rare cancers, is observing enough cases. To address this, researchers often join forces by bringing multiple studies together to achieve large sample sizes, allowing for increased power in hypothesis testing, and improved efficiency in effect estimation. Combining studies, however, renders the analysis difficult owing to the presence of heterogeneity in the pooled data. In this article, motivated by a collaborative nested case-control (NCC) study of ovarian cancer in three cohorts from United States, Sweden, and Italy, we investigate the use of penalty regularized partial likelihood estimation in the context of pooled NCC studies to achieve two goals. First, we propose an adaptive group lasso (gLASSO) penalized approach to simultaneously identify important variables and estimate their effects. Second, we propose a composite agLASSO penalized approach to identify variables with heterogeneous effects. Both methods are readily implemented with the group coordinate gradient decent algorithm and shown to enjoy the oracle property. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the performance of our proposed approaches in finite samples under various heterogeneity settings, and apply them to the pooled ovarian cancer study.
| S-EPMC3841381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Predictive or treatment selection biomarkers are usually evaluated in a subgroup or regression analysis with focus on the treatment-by-marker interaction. Under a potential outcome framework (Huang, Gilbert and Janes [Biometrics68 (2012) 687-696]), a predictive biomarker is considered a predictor for a desirable treatment benefit (defined by comparing potential outcomes for different treatments) and evaluated using familiar concepts in prediction and classification. However, the desired treatment benefit is un-observable because each patient can receive only one treatment in a typical study. Huang et al. overcome this problem by assuming monotonicity of potential outcomes, with one treatment dominating the other in all patients. Motivated by an HIV example that appears to violate the monotonicity assumption, we propose a different approach based on covariates and random effects for evaluating predictive biomarkers under the potential outcome framework. Under the proposed approach, the parameters of interest can be identified by assuming conditional independence of potential outcomes given observed covariates, and a sensitivity analysis can be performed by incorporating an unobserved random effect that accounts for any residual dependence. Application of this approach to the motivating example shows that baseline viral load and CD4 cell count are both useful as predictive biomarkers for choosing antiretroviral drugs for treatment-naive patients.
| S-EPMC4714717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The inclusion of covariates in population models during drug development is a key step to understanding drug variability and support dosage regimen proposal, but high correlation among covariates often complicates the identification of the true covariate. We compared three covariate selection methods balancing data information and prior knowledge: (1) full fixed effect modelling (FFEM), with covariate selection prior to data analysis, (2) simplified stepwise covariate modelling (sSCM), data driven selection only, and (3) Prior-Adjusted Covariate Selection (PACS) mixing both. PACS penalizes the a priori less likely covariate model by adding to its objective function value (OFV) a prior probability-derived constant: [Formula: see text], Pr(X) being the probability of the more likely covariate. Simulations were performed to compare their external performance (average OFV in a validation dataset of 10,000 subjects) in selecting the true covariate between two highly correlated covariates: 0.5, 0.7, or 0.9, after a training step on datasets of 12, 25 or 100 subjects (increasing power). With low power data no method was superior, except FFEM when associated with highly correlated covariates ([Formula: see text]), sSCM and PACS suffering both from selection bias. For high power data, PACS and sSCM performed similarly, both superior to FFEM. PACS is an alternative for covariate selection considering both the expected power to identify an anticipated covariate relation and the probability of prior information being correct. A proposed strategy is to use FFEM whenever the expected power to distinguish between contending models is < 80%, PACS when > 80% but < 100%, and SCM when the expected power is 100%.
| S-EPMC7520415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many applications of machine-learning methods involve an iterative protocol in which data are collected, a model is trained, and then outputs of that model are used to choose what data to consider next. For example, a data-driven approach for designing proteins is to train a regression model to predict the fitness of protein sequences and then use it to propose new sequences believed to exhibit greater fitness than observed in the training data. Since validating designed sequences in the wet laboratory is typically costly, it is important to quantify the uncertainty in the model's predictions. This is challenging because of a characteristic type of distribution shift between the training and test data that arises in the design setting-one in which the training and test data are statistically dependent, as the latter is chosen based on the former. Consequently, the model's error on the test data-that is, the designed sequences-has an unknown and possibly complex relationship with its error on the training data. We introduce a method to construct confidence sets for predictions in such settings, which account for the dependence between the training and test data. The confidence sets we construct have finite-sample guarantees that hold for any regression model, even when it is used to choose the test-time input distribution. As a motivating use case, we use real datasets to demonstrate how our method quantifies uncertainty for the predicted fitness of designed proteins and can therefore be used to select design algorithms that achieve acceptable tradeoffs between high predicted fitness and low predictive uncertainty.
| S-EPMC9618043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Estimation of treatment effects in randomized studies is often hampered by possible selection bias induced by conditioning on or adjusting for a variable measured post-randomization. One approach to obviate such selection bias is to consider inference about treatment effects within principal strata, that is, principal effects. A challenge with this approach is that without strong assumptions principal effects are not identifiable from the observable data. In settings where such assumptions are dubious, identifiable large sample bounds may be the preferred target of inference. In practice these bounds may be wide and not particularly informative. In this work we consider whether bounds on principal effects can be improved by adjusting for a categorical baseline covariate. Adjusted bounds are considered which are shown to never be wider than the unadjusted bounds. Necessary and sufficient conditions are given for which the adjusted bounds will be sharper (i.e., narrower) than the unadjusted bounds. The methods are illustrated using data from a recent, large study of interventions to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV through breastfeeding. Using a baseline covariate indicating low birth weight, the estimated adjusted bounds for the principal effect of interest are 63% narrower than the estimated unadjusted bounds.
| S-EPMC4086842 | biostudies-literature