Search

Data collected for a genome-wide association study of a primary phenotype are often used for additional genome-wide association analyses of secondary phenotypes. However, when the primary and secondary traits are dependent, naïve analyses of secondary phenotypes may induce spurious associations in non-randomly ascertained samples. Previously, retrospective likelihood-based methods have been proposed to correct for sampling biases arising in secondary trait association analyses. However, most methods have been introduced to handle studies featuring a case-control design based on a binary primary phenotype. As such, these methods are not directly applicable to more complicated study designs such as multiple-trait studies, where the sampling mechanism also depends on the secondary phenotype, or extreme-trait studies, where individuals with extreme primary phenotype values are selected. To accommodate these more complicated sampling mechanisms, only a few prospective likelihood approaches have been proposed. These approaches assume a normal distribution for the secondary phenotype (or the latent secondary phenotype) and a bivariate normal distribution for the primary-secondary phenotype dependence. In this paper, we propose a unified copula-based approach to appropriately detect genetic variant/secondary phenotype association in the presence of selected samples. Primary phenotype is either binary or continuous and the secondary phenotype is continuous although not necessary normal. We use both prospective and retrospective likelihoods to account for the sampling mechanism and use a copula model to allow for potentially different dependence structures between the primary and secondary phenotypes. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach through simulation studies and by analyzing data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many applications of linear mixed-effects models to longitudinal and multilevel data especially from medical studies, it is of interest to test for the need of random effects in the model. It is known that classical tests such as the likelihood ratio, Wald, and score tests are not suitable for testing random effects because they suffer from testing on the boundary of the parameter space. Instead, permutation and bootstrap tests as well as Bayesian tests, which do not rely on the asymptotic distributions, avoid issues with the boundary of the parameter space. In this paper, we first develop a permutation test based on the likelihood ratio test statistic, which can be easily used for testing multiple random effects and any subset of them in linear mixed-effects models. The proposed permutation test would be an extension to two existing permutation tests. We then aim to compare permutation tests and Bayesian tests for random effects to find out which test is more powerful under which situation. Nothing is known about this in the literature, although this is an important practical problem due to the usefulness of both methods in tackling the challenges with testing random effects. For this, we consider a Bayesian test developed using Bayes factors, where we also propose a new alternative computation for this Bayesian test to avoid some computational issue it encounters in testing multiple random effects. Extensive simulations and a real data analysis are used for evaluation of the proposed permutation test and its comparison with the Bayesian test. We find that both tests perform well, albeit the permutation test with the likelihood ratio statistic tends to provide a relatively higher power when testing multiple random effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Standard methods for two-sample tests such as the t-test and Wilcoxon rank sum test may lead to incorrect type I errors when applied to longitudinal or clustered data. Recent alternatives of two-sample tests for clustered data often require certain assumptions on the correlation structure and/or noninformative cluster size. In this paper, based on a novel pseudolikelihood for correlated data, we propose a score test without knowledge of the correlation structure or assuming data missingness at random. The proposed score test can capture differences in the mean and variance between two groups simultaneously. We use projection theory to derive the limiting distribution of the test statistic, in which the covariance matrix can be empirically estimated. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the proposed test and compare it with existing methods. To illustrate the usefulness proposed test, we use it to compare self-reported weight loss data in a friends' referral group, with the data from the Internet self-joining group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A primary goal of a phase II dose-ranging trial is to identify a correct dose before moving forward to a phase III confirmatory trial. A correct dose is one that is actually better than control. A popular model in phase II is an independent model that puts no structure on the dose-response relationship. Unfortunately, the independent model does not efficiently use information from related doses. One very successful alternate model improves power using a pre-specified dose-response structure. Past research indicates that EMAX models are broadly successful and therefore attractive for designing dose-response trials. However, there may be instances of slight risk of nonmonotone trends that need to be addressed when planning a clinical trial design. We propose to add hierarchical parameters to the EMAX model. The added layer allows information about the treatment effect in one dose to be "borrowed" when estimating the treatment effect in another dose. This is referred to as the hierarchical EMAX model. Our paper compares three different models (independent, EMAX, and hierarchical EMAX) and two different design strategies. The first design considered is Bayesian with a fixed trial design, and it has a fixed schedule for randomization. The second design is Bayesian but adaptive, and it uses response adaptive randomization. In this article, a randomized trial of patients with severe traumatic brain injury is provided as a motivating example. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The method of generalized estimating equations (GEE) is popular in the biostatistics literature for analyzing longitudinal binary and count data. It assumes a generalized linear model for the outcome variable, and a working correlation among repeated measurements. In this paper, we introduce a viable competitor: the weighted scores method for generalized linear model margins. We weight the univariate score equations using a working discretized multivariate normal model that is a proper multivariate model. Because the weighted scores method is a parametric method based on likelihood, we propose composite likelihood information criteria as an intermediate step for model selection. The same criteria can be used for both correlation structure and variable selection. Simulations studies and the application example show that our method outperforms other existing model selection methods in GEE. From the example, it can be seen that our methods not only improve on GEE in terms of interpretability and efficiency but also can change the inferential conclusions with respect to GEE. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Generalized estimating equations (GEE) is a general statistical method to fit marginal models for longitudinal data in biomedical studies. The variance-covariance matrix of the regression parameter coefficients is usually estimated by a robust "sandwich" variance estimator, which does not perform satisfactorily when the sample size is small. To reduce the downward bias and improve the efficiency, several modified variance estimators have been proposed for bias-correction or efficiency improvement. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review on recent developments of modified variance estimators and compare their small-sample performance theoretically and numerically through simulation and real data examples. In particular, Wald tests and t-tests based on different variance estimators are used for hypothesis testing, and the guideline on appropriate sample sizes for each estimator is provided for preserving type I error in general cases based on numerical results. Moreover, we develop a user-friendly R package "geesmv" incorporating all of these variance estimators for public usage in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is common for longitudinal clinical trials to face problems of item non-response, unit non-response, and drop-out. In this paper, we compare two alternative methods of handling multivariate incomplete data across a baseline assessment and three follow-up time points in a multi-centre randomized controlled trial of a disease management programme for late-life depression. One approach combines hot-deck (HD) multiple imputation using a predictive mean matching method for item non-response and the approximate Bayesian bootstrap for unit non-response. A second method is based on a multivariate normal (MVN) model using PROC MI in SAS software V8.2. These two methods are contrasted with a last observation carried forward (LOCF) technique and available-case (AC) analysis in a simulation study where replicate analyses are performed on subsets of the originally complete cases. Missing-data patterns were simulated to be consistent with missing-data patterns found in the originally incomplete cases, and observed complete data means were taken to be the targets of estimation. Not surprisingly, the LOCF and AC methods had poor coverage properties for many of the variables evaluated. Multiple imputation under the MVN model performed well for most variables but produced less than nominal coverage for variables with highly skewed distributions. The HD method consistently produced close to nominal coverage, with interval widths that were roughly 7 per cent larger on average than those produced from the MVN model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]