Search

Derived variables are variables that are constructed from one or more source variables through established mathematical operations or algorithms. For example, body mass index (BMI) is a derived variable constructed from two source variables: weight and height. When using a derived variable as the outcome in a statistical model, complications arise when some of the source variables have missing values. In this paper, we propose how one can define a single fully Bayesian model to simultaneously impute missing values and sample from the posterior. We compare our proposed method with alternative approaches that rely on multiple imputation, and, with a simulated dataset, consider how best to estimate the risk of microcephaly in newborns exposed to the ZIKA virus.

Non-representative surveys are commonly used and widely available but suffer from selection bias that generally cannot be entirely eliminated using weighting techniques. Instead, we propose a Bayesian method to synthesize longitudinal representative unbiased surveys with non-representative biased surveys by estimating the degree of selection bias over time. We show using a simulation study that synthesizing biased and unbiased surveys together out-performs using the unbiased surveys alone, even if the selection bias may evolve in a complex manner over time. Using COVID-19 vaccination data, we are able to synthesize two large sample biased surveys with an unbiased survey to reduce uncertainty in now-casting and inference estimates while simultaneously retaining the empirical credible interval coverage. Ultimately, we are able to conceptually obtain the properties of a large sample unbiased survey if the assumed unbiased survey, used to anchor the estimates, is unbiased for all time-points., Comment: New version includes fixed typos, Monte Carlo Standard error for the simulation (added in V2), and some clarifications

In light of newly developed standardization methods, we evaluate, via simulation study, how propensity score weighting and standardization -based approaches compare for obtaining estimates of the marginal odds ratio and the marginal hazard ratio. Specifically, we consider how the two approaches compare in two different scenarios: (1) in a single observational study, and (2) in an anchored indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of randomized controlled trials. We present the material in such a way so that the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and the (novel) simulated treatment comparison (STC) methods in the ITC setting may be viewed as analogous to the propensity score weighting and standardization methods in the single observational study setting. Our results suggest that current recommendations for conducting ITCs can be improved and underscore the importance of adjusting for purely prognostic factors., Comment: 33 pages

In many common situations, a Bayesian credible interval will be, given the same data, very similar to a frequentist confidence interval, and researchers will interpret these intervals in a similar fashion. However, no predictable similarity exists when credible intervals are based on model-averaged posteriors whenever one of the two nested models under consideration is a so called ''point-null''. Not only can this model-averaged credible interval be quite different than the frequentist confidence interval, in some cases it may be undefined. This is a lesser-known correlate of the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox and is of particular interest given the popularity of the Bayes factor for testing point-null hypotheses.

Recently, several researchers have claimed that conclusions obtained from a Bayes factor (or the posterior odds) may contradict those obtained from Bayesian posterior estimation. In this short paper, we wish to point out that no such "incompatibility" exists if one is willing to consistently define one's priors and posteriors. The key for compatibility is that the (implied) prior model odds used for testing are the same as those used for estimation. Our recommendation is simple: If one reports a Bayes factor comparing two models, then one should also report posterior estimates which appropriately acknowledge the uncertainty with regards to which of the two models is correct., Comment: 12 pages

A common problem in the analysis of multiple data sources, including individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA), is the misclassification of binary variables. Misclassification may lead to biased estimates of model parameters, even when the misclassification is entirely random. We aimed to develop statistical methods that facilitate unbiased estimation of adjusted and unadjusted exposure-outcome associations and between-study heterogeneity in IPD-MA, where the extent and nature of exposure misclassification may vary across studies. We present Bayesian methods that allow misclassification of binary exposure variables to depend on study- and participant-level characteristics. In an example of the differential diagnosis of dengue using two variables, where the gold standard measurement for the exposure variable was unavailable for some studies which only measured a surrogate prone to misclassification, our methods yielded more accurate estimates than analyses naive with regard to misclassification or based on gold standard measurements alone. In a simulation study, the evaluated misclassification model yielded valid estimates of the exposure-outcome association, and was more accurate than analyses restricted to gold standard measurements. Our proposed framework can appropriately account for the presence of binary exposure misclassification in IPD-MA. It requires that some studies supply IPD for the surrogate and gold standard exposure and misclassification is exchangeable across studies conditional on observed covariates (and outcome). The proposed methods are most beneficial when few large studies that measured the gold standard are available, and when misclassification is frequent.

Following an extensive simulation study comparing the operating characteristics of three different procedures used for establishing equivalence (the frequentist "TOST", the Bayesian "HDI-ROPE", and the Bayes factor interval null procedure), Linde et al. (2021) conclude with the recommendation that "researchers rely more on the Bayes factor interval null approach for quantifying evidence for equivalence." We redo the simulation study of Linde et al. (2021) in its entirety but with the different procedures calibrated to have the same predetermined maximum type 1 error rate. Our results suggest that, when calibrated in this way, the Bayes Factor, HDI-ROPE, and frequentist equivalence tests all have similar -- almost exactly -- type 2 error rates. In general any advocating for frequentist testing as better or worse than Bayesian testing in terms of empirical findings seems dubious at best. If one decides on which underlying principle to subscribe to in tackling a given problem, then the method follows naturally. Bearing in mind that each procedure can be reverse-engineered from the others (at least approximately), trying to use empirical performance to argue for one approach over another seems like tilting at windmills., Comment: 16 pages, 5 figures

Ideally, a meta-analysis will summarize data from several unbiased studies. Here we consider the less than ideal situation in which contributing studies may be compromised by measurement error. Measurement error affects every study design, from randomized controlled trials to retrospective observational studies. We outline a flexible Bayesian framework for continuous outcome data which allows one to obtain appropriate point and interval estimates with varying degrees of prior knowledge about the magnitude of the measurement error. We also demonstrate how, if individual-participant data (IPD) are available, the Bayesian meta-analysis model can adjust for multiple participant-level covariates, measured with or without measurement error.

A key challenge in estimating the infection fatality rate (IFR) -- and its relation with various factors of interest -- is determining the total number of cases. The total number of cases is not known because not everyone is tested, but also, more importantly, because tested individuals are not representative of the population at large. We refer to the phenomenon whereby infected individuals are more likely to be tested than non-infected individuals, as "preferential testing." An open question is whether or not it is possible to reliably estimate the IFR without any specific knowledge about the degree to which the data are biased by preferential testing. In this paper we take a partial identifiability approach, formulating clearly where deliberate prior assumptions can be made and presenting a Bayesian model which pools information from different samples. When the model is fit to European data obtained from seroprevalence studies and national official COVID-19 statistics, we estimate the overall COVID-19 IFR for Europe to be 0.53%, 95% C.I. = [0.39%, 0.69%]., Comment: 53 pages, 14 figures

We introduce equivalence testing procedures for linear regression analyses. Such tests can be very useful for confirming the lack of a meaningful association between a continuous outcome and a continuous or binary predictor. Specifically, we propose an equivalence test for unstandardized regression coefficients and an equivalence test for semipartial correlation coefficients. We review how to define valid hypotheses, how to calculate p-values, and how these tests compare to an alternative Bayesian approach with applications to examples in the literature., Comment: 54 pages

Determining the lack of association between an outcome variable and a number of different explanatory variables is frequently necessary in order to disregard a proposed model. This paper proposes a non-inferiority test for the coefficient of determination (or squared multiple correlation coefficient), R-squared, in a linear regression analysis with random predictors. The test is derived from inverting a one-sided confidence interval based on a scaled central F distribution., Comment: 14 pages, 2 figures

Count data are ubiquitous in ecology and the Poisson generalized linear model (GLM) is commonly used to model the association between counts and explanatory variables of interest. When fitting this model to the data, one typically proceeds by first confirming that the data is not overdispersed and that there is no excess of zeros. If the data appear to be overdispersed or if there is any zero-inflation, key assumptions of the Poison GLM may be violated and researchers will then typically consider alternatives to the Poison GLM. An important question is whether the potential model selection bias introduced by this data-driven multi-stage procedure merits concern. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale simulation study to investigate the potential consequences of model selection bias that can arise in the simple scenario of analyzing a sample of potentially overdispersed, potentially zero-heavy, count data., Comment: 30 pages, 17 figures

Determining a lack of association between an outcome variable and a number of different explanatory variables is frequently necessary in order to disregard a proposed model (i.e., to confirm the lack of an association between an outcome and predictors). Despite this, the literature rarely offers information about, or technical recommendations concerning, the appropriate statistical methodology to be used to accomplish this task. This paper introduces non-inferiority tests for ANOVA and linear regression analyses, that correspond to the standard widely used $F$-test for $\hat{\eta}^2$ and $R^{2}$, respectively. A simulation study is conducted to examine the type I error rates and statistical power of the tests, and a comparison is made with an alternative Bayesian testing approach. The results indicate that the proposed non-inferiority test is a potentially useful tool for 'testing the null.', Comment: 30 pages, 6 figures

In order to determine whether or not an effect is absent based on a statistical test, the recommended frequentist tool is the equivalence test. Typically, it is expected that an appropriate equivalence margin has been specified before any data are observed. Unfortunately, this can be a difficult task. If the margin is too small, then the test's power will be substantially reduced. If the margin is too large, any claims of equivalence will be meaningless. Moreover, it remains unclear how defining the margin afterwards will bias one's results. In this short article, we consider a series of hypothetical scenarios in which the margin is defined post-hoc or is otherwise considered controversial. We also review a number of relevant, potentially problematic actual studies from clinical trials research, with the aim of motivating a critical discussion as to what is acceptable and desirable in the reporting and interpretation of equivalence tests.

In response to growing concern about the reliability and reproducibility of published science, researchers have proposed adopting measures of greater statistical stringency, including suggestions to require larger sample sizes and to lower the highly criticized p<0.05 significance threshold. While pros and cons are vigorously debated, there has been little to no modeling of how adopting these measures might affect what type of science is published. In this paper, we develop a novel optimality model that, given current incentives to publish, predicts a researcher's most rational use of resources in terms of the number of studies to undertake, the statistical power to devote to each study, and the desirable pre-study odds to pursue. We then develop a methodology that allows one to estimate the reliability of published research by considering a distribution of preferred research strategies. Using this approach, we investigate the merits of adopting measures of `greater statistical stringency' with the goal of informing the ongoing debate.

When the outcome of interest is semicontinuous and collected longitudinally, efficient testing can be difficult. Daily rainfall data is an excellent example which we use to illustrate the various challenges. Even under the simplest scenario, the popular 'two-part model', which uses correlated random-effects to account for both the semicontinuous and longitudinal characteristics of the data, often requires prohibitively intensive numerical integration and difficult interpretation. Reducing data to binary (truncating continuous positive values to equal one), while relatively straightforward, leads to a potentially substantial loss in power. We propose an alternative: using a non-parametric rank test recently proposed for joint longitudinal survival data. We investigate the benefits of such a test for the analysis of semicontinuous longitudinal data with regards to power and computational feasibility., Comment: 21 pages with SAS and R code

We introduce a publication policy that incorporates conditional equivalence testing (CET), a two-stage testing scheme in which standard NHST is followed conditionally by testing for equivalence. The idea of CET is carefully considered as it has the potential to address recent concerns about reproducibility and the limited publication of null results. In this paper we detail the implementation of CET, investigate similarities with a Bayesian testing scheme, and outline the basis for how a scientific journal could proceed to reduce publication bias while remaining relevant., Comment: 37 pages, 9 figures