Dataset Information

A pseudo-likelihood method for estimating misclassification probabilities in competing-risks settings when true-event data are partially observed.

ABSTRACT: Outcome misclassification occurs frequently in binary-outcome studies and can result in biased estimation of quantities such as the incidence, prevalence, cause-specific hazards, cumulative incidence functions, and so forth. A number of remedies have been proposed to address the potential misclassification of the outcomes in such data. The majority of these remedies lie in the estimation of misclassification probabilities, which are in turn used to adjust analyses for outcome misclassification. A number of authors advocate using a gold-standard procedure on a sample internal to the study to learn about the extent of the misclassification. With this type of internal validation, the problem of quantifying the misclassification also becomes a missing data problem as, by design, the true outcomes are only ascertained on a subset of the entire study sample. Although, the process of estimating misclassification probabilities appears simple conceptually, the estimation methods proposed so far have several methodological and practical shortcomings. Most methods rely on missing outcome data to be missing completely at random (MCAR), a rather stringent assumption which is unlikely to hold in practice. Some of the existing methods also tend to be computationally-intensive. To address these issues, we propose a computationally-efficient, easy-to-implement, pseudo-likelihood estimator of the misclassification probabilities under a missing at random (MAR) assumption, in studies with an available internal-validation sample. We present the estimator through the lens of studies with competing-risks outcomes, though the estimator extends beyond this setting. We describe the consistency and asymptotic distributional properties of the resulting estimator, and derive a closed-form estimator of its variance. The finite-sample performance of this estimator is evaluated via simulations. Using data from a real-world study with competing-risks outcomes, we illustrate how the proposed method can be used to estimate misclassification probabilities. We also show how the estimated misclassification probabilities can be used in an external study to adjust for possible misclassification bias when modeling cumulative incidence functions.

SUBMITTER: Mpofu PB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7641920 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In many public health and medical research settings, information on key covariates may not be readily available or too expensive to gather for all individuals in the study. In such settings, the two-phase design provides a way forward by first stratifying an initial (large) phase I sample on the basis of covariates readily available (including, possibly, the outcome), and sub-sampling participants at phase II to collect the expensive measure(s). When the outcome of interest is binary, several methods have been proposed for estimation and inference for the parameters of a logistic regression model, including weighted likelihood, pseudo-likelihood and maximum likelihood. Although these methods yield consistent estimation and valid inference, they do so solely on the basis of the phase I stratification and the detailed covariate information obtained at phase II. Moreover, they ignore any additional information that is readily available at phase I but was not used as part of the stratified sampling design. Motivated by the potential for efficiency gains, especially concerning parameters corresponding to the additional phase I covariates, we propose a novel augmented pseudo-likelihood estimator for two-phase studies that makes use of all available information. In contrast to recently-proposed weighted likelihood-based methods that calibrate to the influence function of the model of interest, the methods we propose do not require the development of additional models and, therefore, enjoy a degree of robustness. In addition, we expand the broader framework for pseudo-likelihood based estimation and inference to permit link functions for binary regression other than the logit link. Comprehensive simulations, based on a one-time cross sectional survey of 82,887 patients undergoing anti-retroviral therapy in Malawi between 2005 and 2007, illustrate finite sample properties of the proposed methods and compare their performance competing approaches. The proposed method yields the lowest standard errors when the model is correctly specified. Finally, the methods are applied to a large implementation science project examining the effect of an enhanced community health worker program to improve adherence to WHO guidelines for at least four antenatal visits, in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Different strategies toward implementing competing risks in discrete-event simulation (DES) models are available. This study aims to provide recommendations regarding modeling approaches that can be defined based on these strategies by performing a quantitative comparison of alternative modeling approaches. METHODS:Four modeling approaches were defined: 1) event-specific distribution (ESD), 2) event-specific probability and distribution (ESPD), 3) unimodal joint distribution and regression model (UDR), and 4) multimodal joint distribution and regression model (MDR). Each modeling approach was applied to uncensored individual patient data in a simulation study and a case study in colorectal cancer. Their performance was assessed in terms of relative event incidence difference, relative absolute event incidence difference, and relative entropy of time-to-event distributions. Differences in health economic outcomes were also illustrated for the case study. RESULTS:In the simulation study, the ESPD and MDR approaches outperformed the ESD and UDR approaches, in terms of both event incidence differences and relative entropy. Disease pathway and data characteristics, such as the number of competing risks and overlap between competing time-to-event distributions, substantially affected the approaches' performance. Although no considerable differences in health economic outcomes were observed, the case study showed that the ESPD approach was most sensitive to low event rates, which negatively affected performance. CONCLUSIONS:Based on overall performance, the recommended modeling approach for implementing competing risks in DES models is the MDR approach, which is defined according to the general strategy of selecting the time-to-event first and the corresponding event second. The ESPD approach is a less complex and equally performing alternative if sufficient observations are available for each competing event (i.e., the internal validity shows appropriate data representation).

Dataset Information

A pseudo-likelihood method for estimating misclassification probabilities in competing-risks settings when true-event data are partially observed.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets