Missing Covariate Data in Matched Case-Control Studies
|
|
- Constance Warren
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Missing Covariate Data in Matched Case-Control Studies Department of Statistics North Carolina State University Paul Rathouz Dept. of Health Studies U. of Chicago with Glen A. Satten Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Raymond J. Carroll Texas A& M University October 15,
2 General Framework Highly-stratified or Clustered Binary Data Observations: j = 1,..., n within stratum i Strata: (many!) matched set i of case-control data multiple subjects in cluster i (prospective) longitudinal observations on subject i Response: D ij (binary disease status) Covariates: Z ij (vector) 2
3 Logistic Regression Model for Stratified Data For observation j, stratum i, define the odds that D ij = 1: And let θ(z ij ) = Pr(D ij = 1 Z ij ) Pr(D ij = 0 Z ij ) θ(z ij ) = exp(q i + β Z ij ) conditional logistic regression model Stratum-level intercept q i is a nuisance fixed effect 3
4 Conditional Likelihood for Nuisance Intercept Model Model: θ = exp(q i + β Z ij ) Data for stratum i: D i = (D i1,..., D in ) Z i = (Z i1,..., Z in ) Stratum-level likelihood: L i (β, q i ) = Pr(D i Z i ) can be written L i = Pr(D i j D ij, Z i ; β) }{{} Pr( j D ij Z i ; β, q i ) }{{} Important: (1) (2) j D ij is a CSS for q i no q i in (1) Define conditional likelihood for (β) L c i(β) = Pr(D i j D ij, Z i ; β) conditional logistic regression likelihood 4
5 What happens when some covariates may be missing? Covariates: X ij some may be missing Z ij always observed Missing covariate indicator: Odds that D ij = 1: R ij = I(X ij observed) θ(x ij, Z ij ) = exp(q i +β zz ij +β xx ij ) Interest on the effects of covariates given by β = (β z, β x) Missing at random (MAR) assumption allows identification of β R ij X ij D ij, Z ij 5
6 Missing Data Example Matched case-control study of hip fracture 118 female hip fracture patients (cases) in Beijing, China (Huo, Lauderdale and Li) 2 controls per case matched on neighborhood and age (within 5 years) Of interest: whether reproductive factors were related to risk of hip fractures in Chinese women aged 50 years and older. Focus on effects (Z ij s) of: parity (per child) breastfeeding (average months per child) Important adjustors (X ij s) include: height (surrogate for hip axis length) BMI (a well-established risk factor) Height and weight self-reported and hence may be missing 6
7 Missing X in CLR Model Three Tricky Features 1. Three sets of nuisance parameters to manage Nuisance intercept q i in model Distribution of missing X: Missingness model: Pr(X ij Z ij ; α) Pr(R ij D ij, Z ij ; γ) 2. Loss of strata with complete record analysis Hip Fracture Example: X ij s Height and BMI missing for 52 (15%) subjects (52/354) Results in 24 (20%) matched sets dropped and 85 (24%) observations dropped (worse if only one control per case) 7
8 3. MAR is not ignorable : Likelihood (conditioning on Z implicit) : L = {Pr(X D) Pr(R = 1 D) Pr(D)} R {Pr(R = 0 D) Pr(D)} 1 R Unconditional inference about β: L = {Pr(D X; β) Pr(X; α) Pr(R = 1 D; γ)} R {Pr(D; β, α) Pr(R = 0 D; γ)} 1 R {Pr(D X; β) Pr(X; α)} R {Pr(D; β, α)} 1 R Note: a valid likelihood but no longer a valid pmf! 8
9 3. (cont.) MAR is not ignorable : Conditional inference about β (given stratum): Temptation: Begin with L = j {Pr(D j X j ; β) Pr(X j ; α)} R j {Pr(D j ; β, α)} 1 R j and condition on j D j for that stratum Problem: L not a valid probability mass function conditioning does not make sense R j is neither a conditioning statistic nor a random variable in L 9
10 The odds model (with all these problems) Why use CLR anyway? θ(x ij, Z ij ) = exp(q i + β zz ij + β xx ij ) looks like a random (q i ) effects model We are treating q i as a fixed effect. Why? nuisance intercept Retrospective data: CLR likelihood reflects matched case-control sampling design Prospective data (clustered or longitudinal): no distributional assumption on q i distribution Q Z of q i : may depend on Z i = (Z i1,..., Z in ) controls for stratum-level confounders each cluster acts as own control 10
11 Advantage of CLR over Random Effects Models Simulated Example n = 10, 000 matched pairs (j = 1, 2) with model logit{pr(d ij = 1 Z ij )} = q i + βz ij where marginal Pr(D ij = 1) 0.5 and β = 0.5 Case 1: corr(q i, Z ij ) = 0 CLR: ˆβ = 0.52 RE: ˆβ = 0.52 Case 2: corr(q i, Z ij ) = 0.54 CLR: ˆβ = 0.48 RE: ˆβ = 0.85 (q i a confounder) 11
12 Semiparametric Efficiency of Maximum Conditional Likelihood Estimator With data across strata i obtain β by maximizing L c i(β) Let q i be random instead of fixed i Let Q Z be the non-parametric distribution function of q i which may depend on Z Semiparametric model in: ( β }{{}, Q Z }{{} ) nonparametric parametric Then β achieves Cramèr-Rao lower bound in presence of unknown Q Z Lindsay (1983) for fixed Z i = z across i Extends to Q Z varying with Z i across i Key assumption: j D ij is CSS for q i 12
13 Missing X in CLR Model Outline Complete record estimator Bias correction by conditioning on observed missingness pattern Efficiency improvement Elimination of ancillary information in missingness process via projection Approximate projection avoids high-dimensional integral and need for exact distribution of X Variation to problem of attrition in longitudinal analyses 13
14 Notation Data for stratum i: D i = (D i1,..., D in ) Z i = (Z i1,..., Z in ) For missing data, write R i = (R i1,..., R in ) X i = (X i1,..., X in ) Define X i,obs, Z i,obs, D i,obs, etc. to be the observed rows of X i, Z i, D i, etc. 14
15 Complete Record Estimation Exploiting a Missingness Model Delete records with missing X j and model (D obs X obs, Z obs ) as if this were the original data We do not need to model X j, but (selection) bias in β... inefficiency in β Bias correction by conditioning on the missingness process, modelling Pr(D obs X obs, Z obs, R) = n j=1 Pr(D j R j = 1, X j, Z j ) R j Requires a missingness model Pr(R j = 1 D j = d, X j, Z j ) = π(d, Z j ; γ) depends on response and other covariates 15
16 Odds that D j = 1 when X j is observed, θ (X j, Z j ) = Pr(D j = 1 R j = 1, X j, Z j ) Pr(D j = 0 R j = 1, X j, Z j ) are just θ (X j, Z j ) = exp(q i + β zz j + β t xx j + B j ) where B j = log{π(1, Z j ; γ)/π(0, Z j ; γ)} case control B j does not contain β or q i is just an offset term depends on missingness parameter γ 16
17 Implications In the complete record likelihood Pr(D obs X obs, Z obs, R; β, γ, q i ) j R jd j is a CSS for q i The complete-record conditional likelihood L c complete(β, γ) = Pr(D obs j R jd j }{{}, X obs, Z obs, R) is free of q i Maximizing # of cases among complete records L c i,complete(β, γ) i will yield the SPE estimator for β among estimators only relying on complete records 17
18 L c complete (β, α) written in terms of odds θ is: L c complete = j θ (X j, Z j ) R jd j d D j θ (X j, Z j ) R jd j where D = {d : j R jd j = j R jd j } Notes: = All possible allocations of complete-data cases among complete data records D L c complete requires that missingness model π(, ; γ) be known or estimated can use standard software for estimation via offset specification standard errors from standard software are conservative if γ estimated if π(d, Z j ; γ) only depends on either d or Z j, naive complete case estimator is consistent Lipsitz, Parzen & Ewell, 1998 Example (revisited) 18
19 Hip Fracture Example Naive complete-record analysis (using 94 of 118 matched sets) Coef. Est. SE Z (others) parity br feed (sd unit) bmi (sd unit) height (sd unit) possibly missing (standard software) 19
20 Non-missingness model (π( )) (data from all 354 observations) Coef. Est. SE Z (others) case elem school middle school post 2nd sch parity br feed (sd unit) (standard software logistic regression) Pr(BMI and Height missing) depends on some covariates (but not parity or breast feeding) non-missing log(or; case vs. control) = B j = log{π j (1)/π j (0)} has mean 0.10 ±.08 which is not very severe complete case analysis (approx) consistent 20
21 Bias-corrected complete-record analysis Coef. Est. SE Z (others) parity br feed (sd unit) bmi (sd unit) height (sd unit) (standard software with offset) Bias-corrected complete-record analysis with correct standard errors Coef. Est. SE Z (others) parity br feed (sd unit) bmi (sd unit) height (sd unit)
22 Efficiency Improvement with L c complete Suppose all records are available Then π(d j, Z j ; γ) can be estimated with likelihood Pr(R i D i, Z i ; γ) i L c complete (β, γ) with estimated γ is more efficient than L c complete (β, γ) with known γ Why? Examine the full likelihood for stratum i: p(x obs D, Z; β) Pr(R D, Z; γ) }{{} Pr(D Z; β) and note that the complete data likelihood is: Pr(D obs X obs, Z obs, R) = n j=1 Pr(D j R j = 1, X j, Z j ) R j wherein R j is a random variable 22
23 Heuristically, L c complete is inefficient because it contains ancillary information in (R D, Z) Estimation of γ removes (some) ancillary information and exploits information on records with missing X Projection can further improve efficiency... Define the score U c complete = log Lc complete β Idea: remove from Ucomplete c the projection onto the space of functions of (R, D, Z) which are unbiased over R conditional on (D, Z) requires integration over X 23
24 Define the projection of a given score g: Proj(g) = E X (g R, D, Z) E R,X (g D, Z) and an improved score for β Notes: U c = U c complete Proj(U c complete) U c is doubly robust α incorrect OR γ incorrect Proj(Ucomplete c ) is (very) difficult to compute We employ an approximate projection U c improved = U c complete Proj approx (U c complete) exploiting a working model and working integral for (X j D j, Z j ; α) = β solving i U i,improved c even if p is wrong = 0 is consistent 24
25 Hip Fracture Example Efficiency Improvement Working model for BMI and height: dichotomize BMI and height 4-cell multinomial model for BMI height mean BMI and height in each category Bias-corrected complete-record analysis with efficiency improvement Coef. Est. SE Z (others) parity br feed (sd unit) Notes: bmi (sd unit) height (sd unit) small differences for missing covariates greater for non-missing covariates (80% improvement for br feed coefficient) 25
26 (from earlier) Bias-corrected complete-record analysis with correct standard errors Coef. Est. SE Z (others) parity br feed (sd unit) bmi (sd unit) height (sd unit)
27 Simulation Study Binary response D ij, logistic regression n = 4 observations per stratum, 200 strata Continuous (X ij, Z ij ) with corr(x ij, Z ij ) 0.5 var(x ij ) = var(z ij ) = 1 Average E(D ij ) 0.3 Missingness probabilities depend on (D ij, Z ij ): 18% missing when D ij = 0 45% missing when D ij = replicates Similar results for binary X ij Similar results for matched case-control study 27
28 Simulation Results Continuous X ij True values are β z = and β x = % Rel. % Bias MSE Eff. Method X-model R-model β z β x β z β x L c X / Z L c X Z Naive π(z) L c complete π(d, Z) Uimproved c X Z π(d, Z) Uimproved c X / Z π(d, Z) = wrong model 28
29 Key Results Complete data likelihood L c complete uses data (D i,obs ij R ijd ij, X i,obs, Z i,obs, R i ) relies on model π for R ij no model for X ij required loss of efficiency Efficiency improvement in L c complete : projection to increase efficiency of L c complete estimating function U c improved exploits a working model for X ij consistent even if this working model is wrong moderate efficiency gained for β z less gain for β x Better for one (or a few) pattern of missingness Better for missing confounder variables 29
30 Fixed effects models for binary data with drop-outs Longitudinal observations: t = 1,..., J within subject i Response: D it (binary disease status) Covariates: Z it (vector) Drop-out: Subject i observed at times t = 1,..., T i J drop-out time Response vector up to time t: D it = (D i1,..., D it ) T Observed response vector: D it = (D i1,..., D it ) T 30
31 Bias-corrected complete-record model Model of interest: θ it = θ(z it ) = Pr(D it = 1 Z it ) Pr(D it = 0 Z it ) with θ it = exp(q i + β T Z it ) suppressing i... Drop-out hazard model: T is drop-out time λ(t, d t ; γ) = Pr(T = t T t, D t = d t, Z) Marginal drop-out probability: π(t, d t ; γ) = Pr(T = t D = d, Z) drop-out is MAR 31
32 Condition on drop-out: L complete = Pr(D T Z, T ) Now condition on # positive responses: L c complete = Pr(D T T t=1 D t, Z, T ) which yields L c complete = { T t=1 θd t t }π(t, D T ) d T D T { T t=1 θd t t }π(t, d T ) where D T is the set of all possible allocations of complete-positive data responses among complete data records 32
33 Efficiency Improvement with L c complete L c complete variable contains drop-out time T as a random But the drop-out process T D, Z is ancillary for parameter of interest β Remove from U c complete the projection onto the space spanned by all scores that are functions of (R it, D i,t 1, Z i ) R it is non-drop-out indicator at t which are unbiased over R it conditional on (R i,t 1 = 1, D i,t 1, Z i ) projection requires integration over (D t, D t+1,..., D J ) T 33
34 Projection requires integration over (D t, D t+1,..., D J ) T given (D i1,..., D i,t 1 ) T :... requires model for joint distribution of D Z... which depends on the non-parametric distribution Q Z of intercepts q i Approximate projection via a working transition model for the vector of responses D Simulation results relative to L complete = Pr(D T Z, T ) with correct drop-out model 5 10% efficiency improvement for using a rich drop-out model 15 20% improvement using approximate projection bias and efficiency very robust to working transition model for D rich drop-out model irrelevant under approximate projection 34
35 EXTRA SLIDES 35
36 Construction of Projected Score 36
37 Construction of Projected Score Vector R specifies missingness pattern: r k = kth missingness pattern, k = 1,..., 2 n Pattern indicator: k = I(R = r k ) = I(kth pattern observed) Data under kth pattern: X (k,obs) = observed components of X X (k,miss) = missing components of X Similarly D (k,obs), D (k,miss), Z (k,obs), Z (k,miss) Rewrite L c complete as L c complete = 2 n k=1 L k k, where 37
38 L k = Pr(D (k,obs) j D j r kj, X (k,obs), Z (k,obs), R = r k ) is L c complete under the kth missingness pattern Similarly U c complete = 2 n k=1 k U k where U k = log L k / β this sums over all possible missingness patterns Now note: k (R) and U k (D (k,obs), X (k,obs), Z (k,obs) ) no X no R Because of this, we can write where Proj( k U k ) = Proj( k )U,k U,k = E X(k,obs) (U k D (k,obs), Z (k,obs) ) 38
39 And Proj( k ) = k E R ( k D, Z) = k ɛ k So that Proj(U c complete) = 2 n k=1 ( k ɛ k )U,k and U c = U c complete Proj(U c complete) Important notes on Proj(U c complete ) does not contain X unbiasedness only depends on correct model π for R Q: Can we replace U,k by any function of (D (k,obs), Z (k,obs) )? A: Yes! Such approximate functions can be derived from a working model for X j 39
40 Modelling X among the controls 40
41 Modelling X ij among the controls Joint Model for D ij and X ij The model of interest can be written in terms of the odds that D j = 1: where θ(x j, Z j ) = Pr(D j = 1 X j, Z j ) Pr(D j = 0 X j, Z j ) θ(x j, Z j ) = exp(q i + β zz j + β xx j ) Define the marginal (over X j ) odds as θ(z j ) = Pr(D j = 1 Z j ) Pr(D j = 0 Z j ) Define a model for X j via p 0 (X j Z j ; α) = p(x j D j = 0, Z j ) new parameter density or pmf of X j among controls 41
42 Two important facts The marginal (over X j ) odds θ(z j ) are in general θ(z j ) = θ(x, Z j ) p 0 (x Z j ) dx odds of D j = 1 density of X j versus D j = 0 given D j = 0 and more specifically θ = exp(q i + β zz j ) exp(β xx) p 0 (x Z j ; α) dx. x Density p(x j D j = 1, Z j ) can be expressed generally as p(x j D j = 1, Z j ) = p 0 (X j Z j ) θ(x j, Z j ) θ(z j ) odds given X j marginal odds 42
43 and specifically as p(x j D j = 1, Z j ) = p 0 (X j Z j ; α) { exp(β xx) p 0 (x Z j ; α) dx Important notes: x role of q i is the same in θ and θ j D j is a CSS for q i in both: the model for (D j X j, Z j ) and the marginal model for (D j Z j ) p(x j D j = 1, Z j ) does not depend on q i (Satten & Kupper, 1993; Satten & Carroll, 2000) } 1 43
44 Implications The full likelihood for stratum i is p(x obs R, D, Z; β, α)pr(r D, Z; γ)pr(d Z; β, α, q i ) β regression parameter α parameter in (X j D j = 0, Z j ) γ parameter in Pr(R j = 1 D j, Z j ) Important facts: Again, j D j is a CSS for q i Pr(R D, Z) is free of (β, α) MAR: p(x obs R, D, Z) = p(x obs D, Z) By conditioning on j D j, we obtain the joint conditional likelihood for (β, α) L c (β, α) p(x obs D, Z)Pr(D j D j, Z) which is free of q i and γ 44
45 Maximizing the conditional likelihood L c i(β, α) i will be SPE for (β, α) even when X i may be missing L c (β, α) is written: { θ(z L c = p(x j D j, Z j ) R j j j ) D j j where D = {d : j d j = j D j} d D j θ(z j ) d j (Satten & Kupper, 1993; Satten & Carroll, 2000) } Pitfall of L c : heavily dependent on model p 0 (X i Z i ; α) does not reduce to standard conditional likelihood when X i is never missing Simulation results... 45
46 Suboptimal Estimation 46
47 Suboptimal Estimation In L c, random variables are (D, X obs, R) and j D j, Z are the only conditioning statistics Suggests conditioning on (X obs, R) and using likelihood Pr(D X obs, R, Z): Pr(D j R j = 1, X j, Z j ) R j Pr(D j R j = 0, Z j ) 1 R j j Again, j D j is sufficient for q i, so the conditional likelihood L c subopt = Pr(D j D j, X obs, R, Z) is free of q i Because j D j is not CSS, maximizing i L c i,subopt will not be SPE for (β, α) 47
48 L c subopt (β, α, γ) is written j θ (X j, Z j ) R jd j θ (Z j ) (1 R j)d j j θ (X j, Z j ) R jd j θ (Z j ) (1 R j)d j d D Odds that D j = 1 when X j is observed: θ (X j, Z j ) = Pr(D j = 1 R j = 1, X j, Z j ) Pr(D j = 0 R j = 1, X j, Z j ) θ (X j, Z j ) = θ(x j, Z j ) π(1, Z j) π(0, Z j ) and when X j is not observed: θ (Z j ) = Pr(D j = 1 R j = 0, Z j ) Pr(D j = 0 R j = 0, Z j ) θ (Z j ) = θ(z j ) 1 π(1, Z j) 1 π(0, Z j ) Missingness model for R j : Pr(R j = 1 D j = d, Z j ) = π(d, Z j ; γ) 48
49 Important notes about L c subopt : reduces to standard conditional likelihood when X j is never missing less dependent on model for X j but: requires a model π for missingness related to work by Paik & Sacco, 2000 Implementation: we need to pre-estimate α in p 0 (X j Z j ; α) and γ in π(d j, Z j ; γ) plug into L c subopt Simulation results... before maximizing over β 49
50 Full Simulation Results 50
51 Simulation Study Binary response D ij, logistic regression n = 4 observations per stratum, 200 strata Continuous (X ij, Z ij ) with corr(x ij, Z ij ) 0.5 var(x ij ) = var(z ij ) = 1 Average E(D ij ) 0.3 Missingness probabilities depend on (D ij, Z ij ): 18% missing when D ij = 0 45% missing when D ij = replicates Similar results for binary X ij Similar results for matched case-control study 51
52 Simulation Results Continuous X ij True values are β z = and β x = % Rel. % Bias MSE Eff. Method X-model R-model β z β x β z β x L c X / Z L c subopt X / Z π(d, Z) L c subopt X / Z π(z) L c X Z L c subopt X Z π(d, Z) L c subopt X Z π(z) Naive π(z) L c complete π(d, Z) Uimproved c X Z π(d, Z) Uimproved c X / Z π(d, Z)
53 Simulation Results Binary X ij True values are β z = and β x = % Rel. % Bias MSE Eff. Method X-model R-model β z β x β z β x L c X / Z L c subopt X / Z π(y, Z) L c subopt X / Z π(z) L c X Z L c subopt X Z π(y, Z) L c subopt X Z π(z) L c complete π(y, Z) Uimproved c X Z π(y, Z) Uimproved c X / Z π(y, Z)
54 Estimation via L c subopt Recall: L c subopt conditions on ( j D j, X obs, R, Z) L c subopt contains parameters α in p 0 (X j Z j ; α) and γ in π(d, Z j ; γ) Missingness parameter γ estimated via likelihood Pr(R i D i, Z i ; γ) i X j -model parameter α estimated via likelihood Pr(X i,obs R i, D i, Z i ; α, β x ) i which results in an extra estimate of β x this extra estimate is discarded 54
55 What is π( ) doing in L c subopt? An heuristic explanation The full likelihood can be written Pr(D j Z j ) {p(x j D j, Z j ) π(d j, Z j )} R j j {1 π(d j, Z j )} 1 R j no q i : factors π(d j, Z j ) and [1 π(d j, Z j )] generally drop out with q i : conditioning on j D j replaces Pr(D j Z j ) with Pr(D j D j, Z) j and so π(d j, Z j ) and [1 π(d j, Z j )] still drop out of the final conditional likelihood This likelihood is only conditional on Z j ; (D j, R j, X j ) are random variables 55
56 Conditioning on X obs requires also conditioning on R The starting-point likelihood is Pr(D j R j = 1, X j, Z j ) R j Pr(D j R j = 0, Z j ) 1 R j j each factor contains π( ) after conditioning on j D j: the terms containing π( ) are no longer separable 56
57 Simulation Results Binary X ij True values are β z = and β x = % Rel. % Bias MSE Eff. Method X-model R-model β z β x β z β x L c X / Z L c subopt X / Z π(y, Z) L c subopt X / Z π(z) L c X Z L c subopt X Z π(y, Z) L c subopt X Z π(z) L c complete π(y, Z) Uimproved c X Z π(y, Z) Uimproved c X / Z π(y, Z)
Analysis of Matched Case Control Data in Presence of Nonignorable Missing Exposure
Biometrics DOI: 101111/j1541-0420200700828x Analysis of Matched Case Control Data in Presence of Nonignorable Missing Exposure Samiran Sinha 1, and Tapabrata Maiti 2, 1 Department of Statistics, Texas
More informationTECHNICAL REPORT Fixed effects models for longitudinal binary data with drop-outs missing at random
TECHNICAL REPORT Fixed effects models for longitudinal binary data with drop-outs missing at random Paul J. Rathouz University of Chicago Abstract. We consider the problem of attrition under a logistic
More information1 Introduction A common problem in categorical data analysis is to determine the effect of explanatory variables V on a binary outcome D of interest.
Conditional and Unconditional Categorical Regression Models with Missing Covariates Glen A. Satten and Raymond J. Carroll Λ December 4, 1999 Abstract We consider methods for analyzing categorical regression
More informationStructural Nested Mean Models for Assessing Time-Varying Effect Moderation. Daniel Almirall
1 Structural Nested Mean Models for Assessing Time-Varying Effect Moderation Daniel Almirall Center for Health Services Research, Durham VAMC & Dept. of Biostatistics, Duke University Medical Joint work
More informationStructural Nested Mean Models for Assessing Time-Varying Effect Moderation. Daniel Almirall
1 Structural Nested Mean Models for Assessing Time-Varying Effect Moderation Daniel Almirall Center for Health Services Research, Durham VAMC & Duke University Medical, Dept. of Biostatistics Joint work
More informationSTAT 5500/6500 Conditional Logistic Regression for Matched Pairs
STAT 5500/6500 Conditional Logistic Regression for Matched Pairs Motivating Example: The data we will be using comes from a subset of data taken from the Los Angeles Study of the Endometrial Cancer Data
More informationMissing covariate data in matched case-control studies: Do the usual paradigms apply?
Missing covariate data in matched case-control studies: Do the usual paradigms apply? Bryan Langholz USC Department of Preventive Medicine Joint work with Mulugeta Gebregziabher Larry Goldstein Mark Huberman
More informationPrevious lecture. P-value based combination. Fixed vs random effects models. Meta vs. pooled- analysis. New random effects testing.
Previous lecture P-value based combination. Fixed vs random effects models. Meta vs. pooled- analysis. New random effects testing. Interaction Outline: Definition of interaction Additive versus multiplicative
More informationHigh-Throughput Sequencing Course
High-Throughput Sequencing Course DESeq Model for RNA-Seq Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Summer 2017 Outline Review: Standard linear regression model (e.g., to model gene expression as function of an
More informationStatistical Methods for Handling Incomplete Data Chapter 2: Likelihood-based approach
Statistical Methods for Handling Incomplete Data Chapter 2: Likelihood-based approach Jae-Kwang Kim Department of Statistics, Iowa State University Outline 1 Introduction 2 Observed likelihood 3 Mean Score
More informationSTAT331. Cox s Proportional Hazards Model
STAT331 Cox s Proportional Hazards Model In this unit we introduce Cox s proportional hazards (Cox s PH) model, give a heuristic development of the partial likelihood function, and discuss adaptations
More informationModelling Association Among Bivariate Exposures In Matched Case-Control Studies
Sankhyā : The Indian Journal of Statistics Special Issue on Statistics in Biology and Health Sciences 2007, Volume 69, Part 3, pp. 379-404 c 2007, Indian Statistical Institute Modelling Association Among
More informationFractional Imputation in Survey Sampling: A Comparative Review
Fractional Imputation in Survey Sampling: A Comparative Review Shu Yang Jae-Kwang Kim Iowa State University Joint Statistical Meetings, August 2015 Outline Introduction Fractional imputation Features Numerical
More informationCox s proportional hazards model and Cox s partial likelihood
Cox s proportional hazards model and Cox s partial likelihood Rasmus Waagepetersen October 12, 2018 1 / 27 Non-parametric vs. parametric Suppose we want to estimate unknown function, e.g. survival function.
More informationSurvival Analysis Math 434 Fall 2011
Survival Analysis Math 434 Fall 2011 Part IV: Chap. 8,9.2,9.3,11: Semiparametric Proportional Hazards Regression Jimin Ding Math Dept. www.math.wustl.edu/ jmding/math434/fall09/index.html Basic Model Setup
More informationSemiparametric Generalized Linear Models
Semiparametric Generalized Linear Models North American Stata Users Group Meeting Chicago, Illinois Paul Rathouz Department of Health Studies University of Chicago prathouz@uchicago.edu Liping Gao MS Student
More informationLecture 12: Effect modification, and confounding in logistic regression
Lecture 12: Effect modification, and confounding in logistic regression Ani Manichaikul amanicha@jhsph.edu 4 May 2007 Today Categorical predictor create dummy variables just like for linear regression
More informationOptimal Treatment Regimes for Survival Endpoints from a Classification Perspective. Anastasios (Butch) Tsiatis and Xiaofei Bai
Optimal Treatment Regimes for Survival Endpoints from a Classification Perspective Anastasios (Butch) Tsiatis and Xiaofei Bai Department of Statistics North Carolina State University 1/35 Optimal Treatment
More informationDescribing Contingency tables
Today s topics: Describing Contingency tables 1. Probability structure for contingency tables (distributions, sensitivity/specificity, sampling schemes). 2. Comparing two proportions (relative risk, odds
More informationIgnoring the matching variables in cohort studies - when is it valid, and why?
Ignoring the matching variables in cohort studies - when is it valid, and why? Arvid Sjölander Abstract In observational studies of the effect of an exposure on an outcome, the exposure-outcome association
More informationLecture Discussion. Confounding, Non-Collapsibility, Precision, and Power Statistics Statistical Methods II. Presented February 27, 2018
, Non-, Precision, and Power Statistics 211 - Statistical Methods II Presented February 27, 2018 Dan Gillen Department of Statistics University of California, Irvine Discussion.1 Various definitions of
More informationLab 8. Matched Case Control Studies
Lab 8 Matched Case Control Studies Control of Confounding Technique for the control of confounding: At the design stage: Matching During the analysis of the results: Post-stratification analysis Advantage
More informationCovariate Balancing Propensity Score for General Treatment Regimes
Covariate Balancing Propensity Score for General Treatment Regimes Kosuke Imai Princeton University October 14, 2014 Talk at the Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Joint work with Christian
More informationIn Praise of the Listwise-Deletion Method (Perhaps with Reweighting)
In Praise of the Listwise-Deletion Method (Perhaps with Reweighting) Phillip S. Kott RTI International NISS Worshop on the Analysis of Complex Survey Data With Missing Item Values October 17, 2014 1 RTI
More informationConstrained Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Model Calibration Using Summary-level Information from External Big Data Sources
Constrained Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Model Calibration Using Summary-level Information from External Big Data Sources Yi-Hau Chen Institute of Statistical Science, Academia Sinica Joint with Nilanjan
More informationCombining Non-probability and Probability Survey Samples Through Mass Imputation
Combining Non-probability and Probability Survey Samples Through Mass Imputation Jae-Kwang Kim 1 Iowa State University & KAIST October 27, 2018 1 Joint work with Seho Park, Yilin Chen, and Changbao Wu
More informationYou know I m not goin diss you on the internet Cause my mama taught me better than that I m a survivor (What?) I m not goin give up (What?
You know I m not goin diss you on the internet Cause my mama taught me better than that I m a survivor (What?) I m not goin give up (What?) I m not goin stop (What?) I m goin work harder (What?) Sir David
More informationPropensity Score Weighting with Multilevel Data
Propensity Score Weighting with Multilevel Data Fan Li Department of Statistical Science Duke University October 25, 2012 Joint work with Alan Zaslavsky and Mary Beth Landrum Introduction In comparative
More informationMixed-Effects Pattern-Mixture Models for Incomplete Longitudinal Data. Don Hedeker University of Illinois at Chicago
Mixed-Effects Pattern-Mixture Models for Incomplete Longitudinal Data Don Hedeker University of Illinois at Chicago This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Contract N44MH32056. 1
More informationLecture 5: Poisson and logistic regression
Dankmar Böhning Southampton Statistical Sciences Research Institute University of Southampton, UK S 3 RI, 3-5 March 2014 introduction to Poisson regression application to the BELCAP study introduction
More informationStatistical Analysis of Randomized Experiments with Nonignorable Missing Binary Outcomes
Statistical Analysis of Randomized Experiments with Nonignorable Missing Binary Outcomes Kosuke Imai Department of Politics Princeton University July 31 2007 Kosuke Imai (Princeton University) Nonignorable
More informationLecture 2: Poisson and logistic regression
Dankmar Böhning Southampton Statistical Sciences Research Institute University of Southampton, UK S 3 RI, 11-12 December 2014 introduction to Poisson regression application to the BELCAP study introduction
More informationConfounding, mediation and colliding
Confounding, mediation and colliding What types of shared covariates does the sibling comparison design control for? Arvid Sjölander and Johan Zetterqvist Causal effects and confounding A common aim of
More informationStatistical Methods for Alzheimer s Disease Studies
Statistical Methods for Alzheimer s Disease Studies Rebecca A. Betensky, Ph.D. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health July 19, 2016 1/37 OUTLINE 1 Statistical collaborations
More informationLongitudinal analysis of ordinal data
Longitudinal analysis of ordinal data A report on the external research project with ULg Anne-Françoise Donneau, Murielle Mauer June 30 th 2009 Generalized Estimating Equations (Liang and Zeger, 1986)
More informationMissing Exposure Data in Stereotype Regression Model: Application to Matched Case Control Study with Disease Subclassification
Biometrics 67, 546 558 June 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01453.x issing Exposure Data in Stereotype Regression odel: Application to atched Case Control Study with Disease Subclassification Jaeil
More informationImproving Efficiency of Inferences in Randomized Clinical Trials Using Auxiliary Covariates
Improving Efficiency of Inferences in Randomized Clinical Trials Using Auxiliary Covariates Anastasios (Butch) Tsiatis Department of Statistics North Carolina State University http://www.stat.ncsu.edu/
More information,..., θ(2),..., θ(n)
Likelihoods for Multivariate Binary Data Log-Linear Model We have 2 n 1 distinct probabilities, but we wish to consider formulations that allow more parsimonious descriptions as a function of covariates.
More informationCausal Inference Basics
Causal Inference Basics Sam Lendle October 09, 2013 Observed data, question, counterfactuals Observed data: n i.i.d copies of baseline covariates W, treatment A {0, 1}, and outcome Y. O i = (W i, A i,
More informationSTAT 5500/6500 Conditional Logistic Regression for Matched Pairs
STAT 5500/6500 Conditional Logistic Regression for Matched Pairs The data for the tutorial came from support.sas.com, The LOGISTIC Procedure: Conditional Logistic Regression for Matched Pairs Data :: SAS/STAT(R)
More informationCombining multiple observational data sources to estimate causal eects
Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University Combining multiple observational data sources to estimate causal eects Shu Yang* syang24@ncsuedu Joint work with Peng Ding UC Berkeley May 23,
More informationIntegrated Likelihood Estimation in Semiparametric Regression Models. Thomas A. Severini Department of Statistics Northwestern University
Integrated Likelihood Estimation in Semiparametric Regression Models Thomas A. Severini Department of Statistics Northwestern University Joint work with Heping He, University of York Introduction Let Y
More informationBeyond GLM and likelihood
Stat 6620: Applied Linear Models Department of Statistics Western Michigan University Statistics curriculum Core knowledge (modeling and estimation) Math stat 1 (probability, distributions, convergence
More informationUsing Estimating Equations for Spatially Correlated A
Using Estimating Equations for Spatially Correlated Areal Data December 8, 2009 Introduction GEEs Spatial Estimating Equations Implementation Simulation Conclusion Typical Problem Assess the relationship
More informationA Sampling of IMPACT Research:
A Sampling of IMPACT Research: Methods for Analysis with Dropout and Identifying Optimal Treatment Regimes Marie Davidian Department of Statistics North Carolina State University http://www.stat.ncsu.edu/
More informationSurvival Analysis for Case-Cohort Studies
Survival Analysis for ase-ohort Studies Petr Klášterecký Dept. of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, harles University, Prague, zech Republic e-mail: petr.klasterecky@matfyz.cz
More informationFitting stratified proportional odds models by amalgamating conditional likelihoods
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE Statist. Med. 2008; 27:4950 4971 Published online 10 July 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).3325 Fitting stratified proportional odds models by amalgamating
More informationβ j = coefficient of x j in the model; β = ( β1, β2,
Regression Modeling of Survival Time Data Why regression models? Groups similar except for the treatment under study use the nonparametric methods discussed earlier. Groups differ in variables (covariates)
More informationRegression #3: Properties of OLS Estimator
Regression #3: Properties of OLS Estimator Econ 671 Purdue University Justin L. Tobias (Purdue) Regression #3 1 / 20 Introduction In this lecture, we establish some desirable properties associated with
More informationA Bayesian Nonparametric Approach to Monotone Missing Data in Longitudinal Studies with Informative Missingness
A Bayesian Nonparametric Approach to Monotone Missing Data in Longitudinal Studies with Informative Missingness A. Linero and M. Daniels UF, UT-Austin SRC 2014, Galveston, TX 1 Background 2 Working model
More informationData Integration for Big Data Analysis for finite population inference
for Big Data Analysis for finite population inference Jae-kwang Kim ISU January 23, 2018 1 / 36 What is big data? 2 / 36 Data do not speak for themselves Knowledge Reproducibility Information Intepretation
More informationA unified framework for studying parameter identifiability and estimation in biased sampling designs
Biometrika Advance Access published January 31, 2011 Biometrika (2011), pp. 1 13 C 2011 Biometrika Trust Printed in Great Britain doi: 10.1093/biomet/asq059 A unified framework for studying parameter identifiability
More information1. Introduction This paper focuses on two applications that are closely related mathematically, matched-pair studies and studies with errors-in-covari
Orthogonal Locally Ancillary Estimating Functions for Matched-Pair Studies and Errors-in-Covariates Molin Wang Harvard School of Public Health and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA and John J.
More informationA class of latent marginal models for capture-recapture data with continuous covariates
A class of latent marginal models for capture-recapture data with continuous covariates F Bartolucci A Forcina Università di Urbino Università di Perugia FrancescoBartolucci@uniurbit forcina@statunipgit
More informationModel comparison and selection
BS2 Statistical Inference, Lectures 9 and 10, Hilary Term 2008 March 2, 2008 Hypothesis testing Consider two alternative models M 1 = {f (x; θ), θ Θ 1 } and M 2 = {f (x; θ), θ Θ 2 } for a sample (X = x)
More informationMultistate models and recurrent event models
Multistate models Multistate models and recurrent event models Patrick Breheny December 10 Patrick Breheny Survival Data Analysis (BIOS 7210) 1/22 Introduction Multistate models In this final lecture,
More informationmultilevel modeling: concepts, applications and interpretations
multilevel modeling: concepts, applications and interpretations lynne c. messer 27 october 2010 warning social and reproductive / perinatal epidemiologist concepts why context matters multilevel models
More informationGeneralized logit models for nominal multinomial responses. Local odds ratios
Generalized logit models for nominal multinomial responses Categorical Data Analysis, Summer 2015 1/17 Local odds ratios Y 1 2 3 4 1 π 11 π 12 π 13 π 14 π 1+ X 2 π 21 π 22 π 23 π 24 π 2+ 3 π 31 π 32 π
More informationEmpirical Likelihood Methods for Two-sample Problems with Data Missing-by-Design
1 / 32 Empirical Likelihood Methods for Two-sample Problems with Data Missing-by-Design Changbao Wu Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science University of Waterloo (Joint work with Min Chen and Mary
More informationBiostat 2065 Analysis of Incomplete Data
Biostat 2065 Analysis of Incomplete Data Gong Tang Dept of Biostatistics University of Pittsburgh September 13 & 15, 2005 1. Complete-case analysis (I) Complete-case analysis refers to analysis based on
More informationPropensity Score Methods, Models and Adjustment
Propensity Score Methods, Models and Adjustment Dr David A. Stephens Department of Mathematics & Statistics McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada. d.stephens@math.mcgill.ca www.math.mcgill.ca/dstephens/siscr2016/
More informationMissing Data in Longitudinal Studies: Mixed-effects Pattern-Mixture and Selection Models
Missing Data in Longitudinal Studies: Mixed-effects Pattern-Mixture and Selection Models Hedeker D & Gibbons RD (1997). Application of random-effects pattern-mixture models for missing data in longitudinal
More information5 Methods Based on Inverse Probability Weighting Under MAR
5 Methods Based on Inverse Probability Weighting Under MAR The likelihood-based and multiple imputation methods we considered for inference under MAR in Chapters 3 and 4 are based, either directly or indirectly,
More informationNemours Biomedical Research Statistics Course. Li Xie Nemours Biostatistics Core October 14, 2014
Nemours Biomedical Research Statistics Course Li Xie Nemours Biostatistics Core October 14, 2014 Outline Recap Introduction to Logistic Regression Recap Descriptive statistics Variable type Example of
More information8 Nominal and Ordinal Logistic Regression
8 Nominal and Ordinal Logistic Regression 8.1 Introduction If the response variable is categorical, with more then two categories, then there are two options for generalized linear models. One relies on
More informationMISSING or INCOMPLETE DATA
MISSING or INCOMPLETE DATA A (fairly) complete review of basic practice Don McLeish and Cyntha Struthers University of Waterloo Dec 5, 2015 Structure of the Workshop Session 1 Common methods for dealing
More informationDiscussion of Missing Data Methods in Longitudinal Studies: A Review by Ibrahim and Molenberghs
Discussion of Missing Data Methods in Longitudinal Studies: A Review by Ibrahim and Molenberghs Michael J. Daniels and Chenguang Wang Jan. 18, 2009 First, we would like to thank Joe and Geert for a carefully
More informationStuart R. Lipsitz and Garrett M. Fitzmaurice, Joseph G. Ibrahim, Debajyoti Sinha, Michael Parzen. and Steven Lipshultz
J. R. Statist. Soc. A (2009) 172, Part 1, pp. 3 20 Joint generalized estimating equations for multivariate longitudinal binary outcomes with missing data: an application to acquired immune deficiency syndrome
More informationLogistic Regression. Advanced Methods for Data Analysis (36-402/36-608) Spring 2014
Logistic Regression Advanced Methods for Data Analysis (36-402/36-608 Spring 204 Classification. Introduction to classification Classification, like regression, is a predictive task, but one in which the
More informationLecture 14: Introduction to Poisson Regression
Lecture 14: Introduction to Poisson Regression Ani Manichaikul amanicha@jhsph.edu 8 May 2007 1 / 52 Overview Modelling counts Contingency tables Poisson regression models 2 / 52 Modelling counts I Why
More informationModelling counts. Lecture 14: Introduction to Poisson Regression. Overview
Modelling counts I Lecture 14: Introduction to Poisson Regression Ani Manichaikul amanicha@jhsph.edu Why count data? Number of traffic accidents per day Mortality counts in a given neighborhood, per week
More informationOther Survival Models. (1) Non-PH models. We briefly discussed the non-proportional hazards (non-ph) model
Other Survival Models (1) Non-PH models We briefly discussed the non-proportional hazards (non-ph) model λ(t Z) = λ 0 (t) exp{β(t) Z}, where β(t) can be estimated by: piecewise constants (recall how);
More informationGov 2000: 9. Regression with Two Independent Variables
Gov 2000: 9. Regression with Two Independent Variables Matthew Blackwell Fall 2016 1 / 62 1. Why Add Variables to a Regression? 2. Adding a Binary Covariate 3. Adding a Continuous Covariate 4. OLS Mechanics
More informationLecture 7 Time-dependent Covariates in Cox Regression
Lecture 7 Time-dependent Covariates in Cox Regression So far, we ve been considering the following Cox PH model: λ(t Z) = λ 0 (t) exp(β Z) = λ 0 (t) exp( β j Z j ) where β j is the parameter for the the
More informationCausal Inference with General Treatment Regimes: Generalizing the Propensity Score
Causal Inference with General Treatment Regimes: Generalizing the Propensity Score David van Dyk Department of Statistics, University of California, Irvine vandyk@stat.harvard.edu Joint work with Kosuke
More informationSemiparametric Approach for Non-Monotone Missing Covariates in a Parametric Regression Model
Biometrics DOI: 10.1111/biom.12159 Semiparametric Approach for Non-Monotone Missing Covariates in a Parametric Regression Model Samiran Sinha, 1 Krishna K. Saha, 2 and Suojin Wang 1, * 1 Department of
More information11 November 2011 Department of Biostatistics, University of Copengen. 9:15 10:00 Recap of case-control studies. Frequency-matched studies.
Matched and nested case-control studies Bendix Carstensen Steno Diabetes Center, Gentofte, Denmark http://staff.pubhealth.ku.dk/~bxc/ Department of Biostatistics, University of Copengen 11 November 2011
More informationUnbiased estimation of exposure odds ratios in complete records logistic regression
Unbiased estimation of exposure odds ratios in complete records logistic regression Jonathan Bartlett London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine www.missingdata.org.uk Centre for Statistical Methodology
More informationMeasures of Association and Variance Estimation
Measures of Association and Variance Estimation Dipankar Bandyopadhyay, Ph.D. Department of Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University D. Bandyopadhyay (VCU) BIOS 625: Categorical Data & GLM 1 / 35
More informationA Bayesian multi-dimensional couple-based latent risk model for infertility
A Bayesian multi-dimensional couple-based latent risk model for infertility Zhen Chen, Ph.D. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institutes of Health
More informationRobustness to Parametric Assumptions in Missing Data Models
Robustness to Parametric Assumptions in Missing Data Models Bryan Graham NYU Keisuke Hirano University of Arizona April 2011 Motivation Motivation We consider the classic missing data problem. In practice
More informationLinear Regression. Junhui Qian. October 27, 2014
Linear Regression Junhui Qian October 27, 2014 Outline The Model Estimation Ordinary Least Square Method of Moments Maximum Likelihood Estimation Properties of OLS Estimator Unbiasedness Consistency Efficiency
More informationLecture 12. Multivariate Survival Data Statistics Survival Analysis. Presented March 8, 2016
Statistics 255 - Survival Analysis Presented March 8, 2016 Dan Gillen Department of Statistics University of California, Irvine 12.1 Examples Clustered or correlated survival times Disease onset in family
More informationST745: Survival Analysis: Cox-PH!
ST745: Survival Analysis: Cox-PH! Eric B. Laber Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University April 20, 2015 Rien n est plus dangereux qu une idee, quand on n a qu une idee. (Nothing is more
More informationMixture modelling of recurrent event times with long-term survivors: Analysis of Hutterite birth intervals. John W. Mac McDonald & Alessandro Rosina
Mixture modelling of recurrent event times with long-term survivors: Analysis of Hutterite birth intervals John W. Mac McDonald & Alessandro Rosina Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences Seminar -
More informationLecture 8 Stat D. Gillen
Statistics 255 - Survival Analysis Presented February 23, 2016 Dan Gillen Department of Statistics University of California, Irvine 8.1 Example of two ways to stratify Suppose a confounder C has 3 levels
More informationLecture 2: Constant Treatment Strategies. Donglin Zeng, Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina
Lecture 2: Constant Treatment Strategies Introduction Motivation We will focus on evaluating constant treatment strategies in this lecture. We will discuss using randomized or observational study for these
More informationApplied Statistics and Econometrics
Applied Statistics and Econometrics Lecture 6 Saul Lach September 2017 Saul Lach () Applied Statistics and Econometrics September 2017 1 / 53 Outline of Lecture 6 1 Omitted variable bias (SW 6.1) 2 Multiple
More information6. Fractional Imputation in Survey Sampling
6. Fractional Imputation in Survey Sampling 1 Introduction Consider a finite population of N units identified by a set of indices U = {1, 2,, N} with N known. Associated with each unit i in the population
More informationMultistate models and recurrent event models
and recurrent event models Patrick Breheny December 6 Patrick Breheny University of Iowa Survival Data Analysis (BIOS:7210) 1 / 22 Introduction In this final lecture, we will briefly look at two other
More informationSTA 4504/5503 Sample Exam 1 Spring 2011 Categorical Data Analysis. 1. Indicate whether each of the following is true (T) or false (F).
STA 4504/5503 Sample Exam 1 Spring 2011 Categorical Data Analysis 1. Indicate whether each of the following is true (T) or false (F). (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) In 2 2 tables, statistical independence is equivalent
More informationConsider Table 1 (Note connection to start-stop process).
Discrete-Time Data and Models Discretized duration data are still duration data! Consider Table 1 (Note connection to start-stop process). Table 1: Example of Discrete-Time Event History Data Case Event
More informationMixed Models for Longitudinal Ordinal and Nominal Outcomes
Mixed Models for Longitudinal Ordinal and Nominal Outcomes Don Hedeker Department of Public Health Sciences Biological Sciences Division University of Chicago hedeker@uchicago.edu Hedeker, D. (2008). Multilevel
More information1 Motivation for Instrumental Variable (IV) Regression
ECON 370: IV & 2SLS 1 Instrumental Variables Estimation and Two Stage Least Squares Econometric Methods, ECON 370 Let s get back to the thiking in terms of cross sectional (or pooled cross sectional) data
More informationAsymptotic equivalence of paired Hotelling test and conditional logistic regression
Asymptotic equivalence of paired Hotelling test and conditional logistic regression Félix Balazard 1,2 arxiv:1610.06774v1 [math.st] 21 Oct 2016 Abstract 1 Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, CNRS
More informationStatistics in medicine
Statistics in medicine Lecture 4: and multivariable regression Fatma Shebl, MD, MS, MPH, PhD Assistant Professor Chronic Disease Epidemiology Department Yale School of Public Health Fatma.shebl@yale.edu
More informationNuisance parameter elimination for proportional likelihood ratio models with nonignorable missingness and random truncation
Biometrika Advance Access published October 24, 202 Biometrika (202), pp. 8 C 202 Biometrika rust Printed in Great Britain doi: 0.093/biomet/ass056 Nuisance parameter elimination for proportional likelihood
More informationCase-control studies
Matched and nested case-control studies Bendix Carstensen Steno Diabetes Center, Gentofte, Denmark b@bxc.dk http://bendixcarstensen.com Department of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, 8 November
More informationThe propensity score with continuous treatments
7 The propensity score with continuous treatments Keisuke Hirano and Guido W. Imbens 1 7.1 Introduction Much of the work on propensity score analysis has focused on the case in which the treatment is binary.
More informationFigure 36: Respiratory infection versus time for the first 49 children.
y BINARY DATA MODELS We devote an entire chapter to binary data since such data are challenging, both in terms of modeling the dependence, and parameter interpretation. We again consider mixed effects
More information