| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Kjellsson, Maria C., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of proportional odds and differential odds models for mixed-effects analysis of categorical data
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1567-567X .- 1573-8744. ; 35:5, s. 483-501
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this work a model for analyzing categorical data is presented; the differential odds model. Unlike the commonly used proportional odds model, this model does not assume that a covariate affects all categories equally on the log odds scale. The differential odds model was compared to the proportional odds model, by assessing statistical significance and improvement of predictive performance when applying the differential odds model to data previously analyzed using the proportional odds model. Three clinical studies; 3-category T-cell receptor density data, 5-category diarrhea data and 6-category sedation data, were re-analyzed with the differential odds model. As expected, no improvements were seen with T-cell receptor density and diarrhea data. However, for the more complex measurement sedation, the differential odds model provided both statistical improvements and improvements in simulation properties. The estimated actual critical value was for all data lower than the nominal value, using the number of added parameters as the degree of freedom, i.e. the differential odds model is statistically indicated to a less extent than expected. The differential odds model had the desired property of not being indicated when not necessary, but it may provide improvements when the data does not represent a categorization of continuous data.
|
|
| 3. |
- Silber, Hanna E, 1977-, et al.
(författare)
-
The impact of misspecification of residual error or correlation structure on the type I error rate for covariate inclusion
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1567-567X .- 1573-8744. ; 36:1, s. 81-99
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- It has been shown that when using the FOCE method in NONMEM, the likelihood ratio test (LRT) can be sensitive to the use of an inappropriate estimation method in that ignoring an existing eta-epsilon interaction leads to actual significance levels for type I errors being higher than the nominal levels. The objective of this study was to assess through simulations the LRT sensitivity to various types of residual error model misspecifications in both continuous and categorical data. The study contained two parts, simulations based on continuous and categorical data. Data sets containing 250 individuals with up to 24 observations per individual were simulated multiple times (1000) with different types of residual error models for the continuous data and different strength of correlation between observations for the categorical data. The data sets were analyzed using either the correct or a simpler (incorrect) model with or without addition of a covariate. The type I error rate of inclusion of the non-informative covariate on the 5% level was calculated as the number of runs where the drop in the objective function value (OFV) was larger than 3.84 when the covariate relationship was included in the model using the correct or the incorrect model. The difference in OFV between the model with the correct and the incorrect structure was also calculated as a measure of the residual error model misspecification. For continuous data the FOCE method was used in most cases (with interaction when appropriate). The Laplacian estimation method was used for one of the continuous models and for categorical data. The results showed that the residual error model misspecifications when the erroneous model was used were pronounced, as indicated by the OFV being substantially higher than for the corresponding correct models. The significance levels of the LRT with the incorrect model were appropriate in all cases but ignoring (serial) correlations between observations (continuous and categorical data) as well as when the eta-epsilon interaction was ignored (which has previously been shown, continuous data). When ignoring correlation, the type I error rates were shown to be sensitive to the correlation strength, the number of observations per individual and the magnitude of the inter-individual variability on clearance. We conclude that the LRT appears robust towards all tested cases, but ignoring (serial) correlations between observations and eta-epsilon interaction.
|
|
