Dataset Information

Effects of Omitting Non-confounding Predictors From General Relative-Risk Models for Binary Outcomes.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The effects, in terms of bias and precision, of omitting non-confounding predictive covariates from generalized linear models have been well studied, and it is known that such omission results in attenuation bias but increased precision with logistic regression. However, many epidemiologic risk analyses utilize alternative models that are not based on a linear predictor, and the effect of omitting non-confounding predictive covariates from such models has not been characterized. METHODS:We employed simulation to study the effects on risk estimation of omitting non-confounding predictive covariates from an excess relative risk (ERR) model and a general additive-multiplicative relative-risk mixture model for binary outcome data in a case-control setting. We also compared the results to the effects with ordinary logistic regression. RESULTS:For these commonly employed alternative relative-risk models, the bias was similar to that with logistic regression when the risk was small. More generally, the bias and standard error of the risk-parameter estimates demonstrated patterns that are similar to those with logistic regression, but with greater magnitude depending on the true value of the risk. The magnitude of bias and standard error had little relation to study size or underlying disease prevalence. CONCLUSIONS:Prior conclusions regarding omitted covariates in logistic regression models can be qualitatively applied to the ERR and the general additive-multiplicative relative-risk mixture model without substantial change. Quantitatively, however, these alternative models may have slightly greater omitted-covariate bias, depending on the magnitude of the true risk being estimated.

SUBMITTER: Cologne J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6375815 | biostudies-other | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of Omitting Non-confounding Predictors From General Relative-Risk Models for Binary Outcomes.

Cologne John J Furukawa Kyoji K Grant Eric J EJ Abbott Robert D RD

Journal of epidemiology 20180811 3

<h4>Background</h4>The effects, in terms of bias and precision, of omitting non-confounding predictive covariates from generalized linear models have been well studied, and it is known that such omission results in attenuation bias but increased precision with logistic regression. However, many epidemiologic risk analyses utilize alternative models that are not based on a linear predictor, and the effect of omitting non-confounding predictive covariates from such models has not been characterize ...[more]

PMID: 30101814

Similar Datasets

Project description:Risk-prediction models for health outcomes are used in practice as part of clinical decision-making, and it is essential that their performance be externally validated. An important aspect in the design of a validation study is choosing an adequate sample size. In this paper, we investigate the sample size requirements for validation studies with binary outcomes to estimate measures of predictive performance (C-statistic for discrimination and calibration slope and calibration in the large). We aim for sufficient precision in the estimated measures. In addition, we investigate the sample size to achieve sufficient power to detect a difference from a target value. Under normality assumptions on the distribution of the linear predictor, we obtain simple estimators for sample size calculations based on the measures above. Simulation studies show that the estimators perform well for common values of the C-statistic and outcome prevalence when the linear predictor is marginally Normal. Their performance deteriorates only slightly when the normality assumptions are violated. We also propose estimators which do not require normality assumptions but require specification of the marginal distribution of the linear predictor and require the use of numerical integration. These estimators were also seen to perform very well under marginal normality. Our sample size equations require a specified standard error (SE) and the anticipated C-statistic and outcome prevalence. The sample size requirement varies according to the prognostic strength of the model, outcome prevalence, choice of the performance measure and study objective. For example, to achieve an SE < 0.025 for the C-statistic, 60-170 events are required if the true C-statistic and outcome prevalence are between 0.64-0.85 and 0.05-0.3, respectively. For the calibration slope and calibration in the large, achieving SE < 0.15 would require 40-280 and 50-100 events, respectively. Our estimators may also be used for survival outcomes when the proportion of censored observations is high.

Project description:BackgroundLogistic random effects models are a popular tool to analyze multilevel also called hierarchical data with a binary or ordinal outcome. Here, we aim to compare different statistical software implementations of these models.MethodsWe used individual patient data from 8509 patients in 231 centers with moderate and severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) enrolled in eight Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and three observational studies. We fitted logistic random effects regression models with the 5-point Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) as outcome, both dichotomized as well as ordinal, with center and/or trial as random effects, and as covariates age, motor score, pupil reactivity or trial. We then compared the implementations of frequentist and Bayesian methods to estimate the fixed and random effects. Frequentist approaches included R (lme4), Stata (GLLAMM), SAS (GLIMMIX and NLMIXED), MLwiN ([R]IGLS) and MIXOR, Bayesian approaches included WinBUGS, MLwiN (MCMC), R package MCMCglmm and SAS experimental procedure MCMC.Three data sets (the full data set and two sub-datasets) were analysed using basically two logistic random effects models with either one random effect for the center or two random effects for center and trial. For the ordinal outcome in the full data set also a proportional odds model with a random center effect was fitted.ResultsThe packages gave similar parameter estimates for both the fixed and random effects and for the binary (and ordinal) models for the main study and when based on a relatively large number of level-1 (patient level) data compared to the number of level-2 (hospital level) data. However, when based on relatively sparse data set, i.e. when the numbers of level-1 and level-2 data units were about the same, the frequentist and Bayesian approaches showed somewhat different results. The software implementations differ considerably in flexibility, computation time, and usability. There are also differences in the availability of additional tools for model evaluation, such as diagnostic plots. The experimental SAS (version 9.2) procedure MCMC appeared to be inefficient.ConclusionsOn relatively large data sets, the different software implementations of logistic random effects regression models produced similar results. Thus, for a large data set there seems to be no explicit preference (of course if there is no preference from a philosophical point of view) for either a frequentist or Bayesian approach (if based on vague priors). The choice for a particular implementation may largely depend on the desired flexibility, and the usability of the package. For small data sets the random effects variances are difficult to estimate. In the frequentist approaches the MLE of this variance was often estimated zero with a standard error that is either zero or could not be determined, while for Bayesian methods the estimates could depend on the chosen "non-informative" prior of the variance parameter. The starting value for the variance parameter may be also critical for the convergence of the Markov chain.

Dataset Information

Effects of Omitting Non-confounding Predictors From General Relative-Risk Models for Binary Outcomes.

Publications

Effects of Omitting Non-confounding Predictors From General Relative-Risk Models for Binary Outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets