Empirical Likelihood Semiparametric Regression Analysis for Longitudinal Data

A semiparametric regression model for longitudinal data is considered.The empirical likelihood method is used to estimate the regressioncoefficients and the baseline function, and to construct confidenceregions and intervals. It is proved that the maximum empiricallikelihood estimator of the regression coefficients achievesasymptotic efficiency and the estimator of the baseline functionattains asymptotic normality when a bias correction is made.Two calibrated empirical likelihood approaches to inferencefor the baseline function are developed. We propose a groupwiseempirical likelihood procedure to handle the inter-series dependencefor the longitudinal semiparametric regression model, and employbias correction to construct the empirical likelihood ratiofunctions for the parameters of interest. This leads us to provea nonparametric version of Wilks' theorem. Compared with methodsbased on normal approximations, the empirical likelihood doesnot require consistent estimators for the asymptotic varianceand bias. A simulation compares the empirical likelihood andnormal-based methods in terms of coverage accuracies and averageareas/lengths of confidence regions/intervals.     

Incorporating Estimates of Group Size in Sightability Models for Wildlife

ABSTRACT Sightability models have been used to estimate population size of many wildlife species; however, a limitation of these models is an assumption that groups of animals observed and counted during aerial surveys are enumerated completely. Replacing these unknown counts with maximum observed counts, as is typically done, produces population size estimates that are negatively biased. This bias can be substantial depending on the degree of undercounting occurring. We first investigated a method-of-moments estimator of group sizes. We then defined a population size estimator using the method-of-moments estimator of group sizes in place of maximum counts in the traditional sightability models, thereby correcting for bias associated with undercounting group size. We also provide associated equations for calculating the variance of our estimator. This estimator is an improvement over existing sightability model techniques because it significantly reduces bias, and variance estimates provide near nominal confidence interval coverage. The data needed for this estimator can be easily collected and implemented by wildlife managers with a field crew of only 3 individuals and little additional flight or personnel time beyond the normal requirements for developing sightability models.     

Bias and Sensitivity Analysis When Estimating Treatment Effects from the Cox Model with Omitted Covariates

Summary

Omission of relevant covariates can lead to bias when estimating treatment or exposure effects from survival data in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. This paper presents a general approach to assessing bias when covariates are omitted from the Cox model. The proposed method is applicable to both randomized and non‐randomized studies. We distinguish between the effects of three possible sources of bias: omission of a balanced covariate, data censoring and unmeasured confounding. Asymptotic formulae for determining the bias are derived from the large sample properties of the maximum likelihood estimator. A simulation study is used to demonstrate the validity of the bias formulae and to characterize the influence of the different sources of bias. It is shown that the bias converges to fixed limits as the effect of the omitted covariate increases, irrespective of the degree of confounding. The bias formulae are used as the basis for developing a new method of sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of omitted covariates on estimates of treatment or exposure effects. In simulation studies, the proposed method gave unbiased treatment estimates and confidence intervals with good coverage when the true sensitivity parameters were known. We describe application of the method to a randomized controlled trial and a non‐randomized study.     

Accuracy of the endpoint assay for virus titration

The statistics of estimators used with the endpoint assay for virus titration were investigated. For a standard assay with 10 wells/dilution, the graphical estimator traditionally used was found to produce estimates with significant positive bias and a relatively low accuracy. Furthermore, the graphical estimator was found to be inconsistent. A superior estimator based on the maximum likelihood principle was developed. The results are discussed in relation to the choice between the endpoint titration assay and the plaque assay, and an alternative two-stage assay is presented.     

Simultaneous confidence intervals for a success probability and intraclass correlation,with an application to screening mammography

This paper provides asymptotic simultaneous confidence intervals for a success probability and intraclass correlation of the beta‐binomial model, based on the maximum likelihood estimator approach. The coverage probabilities of those intervals are evaluated. An application to screening mammography is presented as an example. The individual and simultaneous confidence intervals for sensitivity and specificity and the corresponding intraclass correlations are investigated. Two additional examples using influenza data and sex ratio data among sibships are also considered, where the individual and simultaneous confidence intervals are provided.     

On the use of concordant pairs in matched case-control studies

A new estimator of the common odds ratio in one-to-one matched case-control studies is proposed. The connection between this estimator and the James-Stein estimating procedure is highlighted through the argument of estimating functions. Comparisons are made between this estimator, the conditional maximum likelihood estimator, and the estimator ignoring the matching in terms of finite sample bias, mean squared error, coverage probability, and length of confidence interval. In many situations, the new estimator is found to be more efficient than the conditional maximum likelihood estimator without being as biased as the estimator that ignores matching. The extension to multiple risk factors is also outlined.     

Statistics of the log-det estimator

The log-det estimator is a measure of divergence (evolutionary distance) between sequences of biological characters, DNA or amino acids, for example, and has been shown to be robust to biases in composition that can cause problems for other estimators. We provide a statistical framework to construct high-accuracy confidence intervals for log-det estimates and compare the efficiency of the estimator to that of maximum likelihood using time-reversible Markov models. The log-det estimator is found to have good statistical properties under such general models.     

A pairwise relatedness estimator for polyploids

Studies in genetics and ecology often require estimates of relatedness coefficients based on genetic marker data. Many diploid estimators have been developed using either method‐of‐moments or maximum‐likelihood estimates. However, there are no relatedness estimators for polyploids. The development of a moment estimator for polyploids with polysomic inheritance, which simultaneously incorporates the two‐gene relatedness coefficient and various ‘higher‐order’ coefficients, is described here. The performance of the estimator is compared to other estimators under a variety of conditions. When using a small number of loci, the estimator is biased because of an increase in ill‐conditioned matrices. However, the estimator becomes asymptotically unbiased with large numbers of loci. The ambiguity of polyploid heterozygotes (when balanced heterozygotes cannot be distinguished from unbalanced heterozygotes) is also considered; as with low numbers of loci, genotype ambiguity leads to bias. A software, PolyRelatedness , implementing this method and supporting a maximum ploidy of 8 is provided.     

Multiple comparisons for analyzing dichotomous response

Dichotomous response models are common in many experimental settings. Statistical parameters of interest are typically the probabilities, pi, that an experimental unit will respond at the various treatment levels. Herein, simultaneous procedures are considered for multiple comparisons among these probabilities, with attention directed at construction of simultaneous confidence intervals for various functions of the pi. The inferences are based on the asymptotic normality of the maximum likelihood estimator of pi. Specific applications include all pairwise comparisons and comparisons with a fixed (control) treatment. Monte Carlo evaluations are undertaken to examine the small-sample properties of the various procedures. It is seen that use of the usual estimates of variance consistently leads to less-than-nominal empirical coverage for most sample sizes examined. For very large samples (total size greater than about 300), nominal coverage is achieved. A reformulation of the pairwise comparisons using a construction noted by Beal (1987, Biometrics 43, 941-950) is shown to exhibit generally nominal empirical coverage characteristics, and is recommended for use with small-to-moderate sample sizes.     

On Estimating Stratified PH Model with Single Covariate from Sparse Data with Application to Brain Metastases Study

The estimation of the unknown parameters in the stratified Cox's proportional hazard model is a typical example of the trade‐off between bias and precision. The stratified partial likelihood estimator is unbiased when the number of strata is large but suffer from being unstable when many strata are non‐informative about the unknown parameters. The estimator obtained by ignoring the heterogeneity among strata, on the other hand, increases the precision of estimates although pays the price for being biased. An estimating procedure, based on the asymptotic properties of the above two estimators, serving to compromise between bias and precision is proposed. Two examples in a radiosurgery for brain metastases study provide some interesting demonstration of such applications.     

A solution to the problem of monotone likelihood in Cox regression

The phenomenon of monotone likelihood is observed in the fitting process of a Cox model if the likelihood converges to a finite value while at least one parameter estimate diverges to +/- infinity. Monotone likelihood primarily occurs in small samples with substantial censoring of survival times and several highly predictive covariates. Previous options to deal with monotone likelihood have been unsatisfactory. The solution we suggest is an adaptation of a procedure by Firth (1993, Biometrika 80, 27-38) originally developed to reduce the bias of maximum likelihood estimates. This procedure produces finite parameter estimates by means of penalized maximum likelihood estimation. Corresponding Wald-type tests and confidence intervals are available, but it is shown that penalized likelihood ratio tests and profile penalized likelihood confidence intervals are often preferable. An empirical study of the suggested procedures confirms satisfactory performance of both estimation and inference. The advantage of the procedure over previous options of analysis is finally exemplified in the analysis of a breast cancer study.     

A general framework for constraint approaches to adjusted risk differences

The risk difference is an intelligible measure for comparing disease incidence in two exposure or treatment groups. Despite its convenience in interpretation, it is less prevalent in epidemiological and clinical areas where regression models are required in order to adjust for confounding. One major barrier to its popularity is that standard linear binomial or Poisson regression models can provide estimated probabilities out of the range of (0,1), resulting in possible convergence issues. For estimating adjusted risk differences, we propose a general framework covering various constraint approaches based on binomial and Poisson regression models. The proposed methods span the areas of ordinary least squares, maximum likelihood estimation, and Bayesian inference. Compared to existing approaches, our methods prevent estimates and confidence intervals of predicted probabilities from falling out of the valid range. Through extensive simulation studies, we demonstrate that the proposed methods solve the issue of having estimates or confidence limits of predicted probabilities out of (0,1), while offering performance comparable to its alternative in terms of the bias, variability, and coverage rates in point and interval estimation of the risk difference. An application study is performed using data from the Prospective Registry Evaluating Myocardial Infarction: Event and Recovery (PREMIER) study.     

Bias-reduced estimators and confidence intervals for odds ratios in genome-wide association studies

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) provide an important approach to identifying common genetic variants that predispose to human disease. A typical GWAS may genotype hundreds of thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) located throughout the human genome in a set of cases and controls. Logistic regression is often used to test for association between a SNP genotype and case versus control status, with corresponding odds ratios (ORs) typically reported only for those SNPs meeting selection criteria. However, when these estimates are based on the original data used to detect the variant, the results are affected by a selection bias sometimes referred to the "winner's curse" (Capen and others, 1971). The actual genetic association is typically overestimated. We show that such selection bias may be severe in the sense that the conditional expectation of the standard OR estimator may be quite far away from the underlying parameter. Also standard confidence intervals (CIs) may have far from the desired coverage rate for the selected ORs. We propose and evaluate 3 bias-reduced estimators, and also corresponding weighted estimators that combine corrected and uncorrected estimators, to reduce selection bias. Their corresponding CIs are also proposed. We study the performance of these estimators using simulated data sets and show that they reduce the bias and give CI coverage close to the desired level under various scenarios, even for associations having only small statistical power.     

A simplified estimator of two and four gene relationship coefficients

Molecular marker data provide a means of circumventing the problem of not knowing the population structure of a natural population, as observed similarities between a pair's genotypes provide information on their genetic relationship. Numerous method-of-moment (MOM) estimators have been developed for estimating relationship coefficients using this information. Here, I present a simplified form of Wang's 2002 relationship estimator that is not dependent upon a previously required weighting scheme, thus improving the efficiency of the estimator when used with genuinely related pairs. The new estimator is compared against other estimators under a range of conditions, including situations where the parameter estimates are truncated to lie within the legitimate parameter space. The advantages of the new estimator are most notable for the two-gene coefficient of relatedness. Truncating the MOM estimators results in parameter estimates whose properties are similar to maximum likelihood estimates, with them having generally lower sampling variances, but being biased.     

On confidence intervals for genotype relative risks and attributable risks from case parent trio designs for candidate-gene studies

Scherag et al. [Hum Hered 2002;54:210-217] recently proposed point estimates and asymptotic as well as exact confidence intervals for genotype relative risks (GRRs) and the attributable risk (AR) in case parent trio designs using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data. The aim of this study was the investigation of coverage probabilities and bias in estimates if the marker locus is not identical to the disease locus. Using a variety of parameter constellations, including marker allele frequencies identical to and different from the SNP at the disease locus, we performed an analytical study to quantify the bias and a Monte-Carlo simulation study for quantifying both bias and coverage probabilities. No bias was observed if marker and trait locus coincided. Two parameters had a strong impact on coverage probabilities of confidence intervals and bias in point estimates if they did not coincide: the linkage disequilibrium (LD) parameter delta and the allele frequency at the marker SNP. If marker allele frequencies were different from the allele frequencies at the functional SNP, substantial biases occurred. Further, if delta between the marker and the disease locus was lower than the maximum possible delta, estimates were also biased. In general, biases were towards the null hypothesis for both GRRs and AR. If one GRR was not increased, as e.g. in a recessive genetic model, biases away from the null could be observed. If both GRRs were in identical directions and if both were substantially larger than 1, the bias always was towards the null. When applying point estimates and confidence intervals for GRRs and AR in candidate gene studies, great care is needed. Effect estimates are substantially biased towards the null if either the allele frequencies at the marker SNP and the true disease locus are different or if the LD between the marker SNP and the disease locus is not at its maximum. A bias away from the null occurs only in uncommon study situations; it is small and can therefore be ignored for applications.     

Uniformly minimum variance unbiased estimation of gene diversity

Gene diversity is an important measure of genetic variability in inbred populations. The survival of species in changing environments depends on, among other factors, the genetic variability of the population. In this communication, I have derived the uniformly minimum variance unbiased estimator of gene diversity. The proposed estimator of gene diversity does not assume that the inbreeding coefficient is known. I have also provided the approximate variance of this estimator according to Fisher's method. In addition, I have developed a numerical resampling-based method for obtaining variances and confidence intervals based on the maximum likelihood estimator and the uniformly minimum variance unbiased estimator. Efficiency in estimation of the gene diversity based on these two estimators is discussed. In accordance with the simulation results, I found that the uniformly minimum variance estimator developed in this report is more accurate for estimation of gene diversity than the maximum likelihood estimator.     

Hierarchical Modeling for Estimating Relative Risks of Rare Genetic Variants: Properties of the Pseudo‐Likelihood Method

Summary Many major genes have been identified that strongly influence the risk of cancer. However, there are typically many different mutations that can occur in the gene, each of which may or may not confer increased risk. It is critical to identify which specific mutations are harmful, and which ones are harmless, so that individuals who learn from genetic testing that they have a mutation can be appropriately counseled. This is a challenging task, since new mutations are continually being identified, and there is typically relatively little evidence available about each individual mutation. In an earlier article, we employed hierarchical modeling ( Capanu et al., 2008 , Statistics in Medicine 27 , 1973–1992) using the pseudo‐likelihood and Gibbs sampling methods to estimate the relative risks of individual rare variants using data from a case–control study and showed that one can draw strength from the aggregating power of hierarchical models to distinguish the variants that contribute to cancer risk. However, further research is needed to validate the application of asymptotic methods to such sparse data. In this article, we use simulations to study in detail the properties of the pseudo‐likelihood method for this purpose. We also explore two alternative approaches: pseudo‐likelihood with correction for the variance component estimate as proposed by Lin and Breslow (1996, Journal of the American Statistical Association 91 , 1007–1016) and a hybrid pseudo‐likelihood approach with Bayesian estimation of the variance component. We investigate the validity of these hierarchical modeling techniques by looking at the bias and coverage properties of the estimators as well as at the efficiency of the hierarchical modeling estimates relative to that of the maximum likelihood estimates. The results indicate that the estimates of the relative risks of very sparse variants have small bias, and that the estimated 95% confidence intervals are typically anti‐conservative, though the actual coverage rates are generally above 90%. The widths of the confidence intervals narrow as the residual variance in the second‐stage model is reduced. The results also show that the hierarchical modeling estimates have shorter confidence intervals relative to estimates obtained from conventional logistic regression, and that these relative improvements increase as the variants become more rare.     

Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials

The Phase I clinical trial is a study intended to estimate the so-called maximum tolerable dose (MTD) of a new drug. Although there exists more or less a standard type of design for such trials, its development has been largely ad hoc. As usually implemented, the trial design has no intrinsic property that provides a generally satisfactory basis for estimation of the MTD. In this paper, the standard design and several simple alternatives are compared with regard to the conservativeness of the design and with regard to point and interval estimation of an MTD (33rd percentile) with small sample sizes. Using a Markov chain representation, we found several designs to be nearly as conservative as the standard design in terms of the proportion of patients entered at higher dose levels. In Monte Carlo simulations, two two-stage designs are found to provide reduced bias in maximum likelihood estimation of the MTD in less than ideal dose-response settings. Of the three methods considered for determining confidence intervals--the delta method, a method based on Fieller's theorem, and a likelihood ratio method--none was able to provide both usefully narrow intervals and coverage probabilities close to nominal.     

A comparative study of conditional maximum likelihood estimation of a common odds ratio

The finite-sample properties of various point estimators of a common odds ratio from multiple 2 X 2 tables have been considered in a number of simulation studies. However, the conditional maximum likelihood estimator has received only limited attention. That omission is partially rectified here for cases of relatively small numbers of tables and moderate to large within-table sample sizes. The conditional maximum likelihood estimator is found to be superior to the unconditional maximum likelihood estimator, and equal or superior to the Mantel-Haenszel estimator in both bias and precision.     

Asymptotically robust variance estimation for person‐time incidence rates

Person‐time incidence rates are frequently used in medical research. However, standard estimation theory for this measure of event occurrence is based on the assumption of independent and identically distributed (iid) exponential event times, which implies that the hazard function remains constant over time. Under this assumption and assuming independent censoring, observed person‐time incidence rate is the maximum‐likelihood estimator of the constant hazard, and asymptotic variance of the log rate can be estimated consistently by the inverse of the number of events. However, in many practical applications, the assumption of constant hazard is not very plausible. In the present paper, an average rate parameter is defined as the ratio of expected event count to the expected total time at risk. This rate parameter is equal to the hazard function under constant hazard. For inference about the average rate parameter, an asymptotically robust variance estimator of the log rate is proposed. Given some very general conditions, the robust variance estimator is consistent under arbitrary iid event times, and is also consistent or asymptotically conservative when event times are independent but nonidentically distributed. In contrast, the standard maximum‐likelihood estimator may become anticonservative under nonconstant hazard, producing confidence intervals with less‐than‐nominal asymptotic coverage. These results are derived analytically and illustrated with simulations. The two estimators are also compared in five datasets from oncology studies.