PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11314994

Marginally specified logistic-normal models for longitudinal binary data.

Abstract

Likelihood-based inference for longitudinal binary data can be obtained using a generalized linear mixed model (Breslow, N. and Clayton, D. G., 1993, Journal of the American Statistical Association 88, 9-25; Wolfinger, R. and O'Connell, M., 1993, Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 48, 233-243), given the recent improvements in computational approaches. Alternatively, Fitzmaurice and Laird (1993, Biometrika 80, 141-151), Molenberghs and Lesaffre (1994, Journal of the American Statistical Association 89, 633-644), and Heagerty and Zeger (1996, Journal of the American Statistical Association 91, 1024-1036) have developed a likelihood-based inference that adopts a marginal mean regression parameter and completes full specification of the joint multivariate distribution through either canonical and/or marginal higher moment assumptions. Each of these marginal approaches is computationally intense and currently limited to small cluster sizes. In this manuscript, an alternative parameterization of the logistic-normal random effects model is adopted, and both likelihood and estimating equation approaches to parameter estimation are studied. A key feature of the proposed approach is that marginal regression parameters are adopted that still permit individual-level predictions or contrasts. An example is presented where scientific interest is in both the mean response and the covariance among repeated measurements.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P J Heagerty. 1999. Marginally specified logistic-normal models for longitudinal binary data.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.1999.00688.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Common biostatistical errors in clinical studies].

Roughly half to two third of all published biomedical studies that use statistical methods contain unacceptable errors. The present article points at common errors that may be avoided without requiring profound statistical knowledge. These errors mainly concern the minimal number of patients and sample size (statistical power), agreement between aim and conclusion, distribution of data as well as description of location and variability of data. An analysis of 150 papers in the New England Journal of Medicine and in Circulation demonstrates that these errors can also commonly be found in respected journals after statistical peer review. Editors of biomedical journals could reduce the problem by means of statistical guidelines.

Biometry↗

How to decide whether small samples comply with an equidistribution.

The decision whether a measured distribution complies with an equidistribution is a central element of many biostatistical methods. High throughput differential expression measurements, for instance, necessitate to judge possible over-representation of genes. The reliability of this judgement, however, is strongly affected when rarely expressed genes are pooled. We propose a method that can be applied to frequency ranked distributions and that yields a simple but efficient criterion to assess the hypothesis of equiprobable expression levels. By applying our technique to surrogate data we exemplify how the decision criterion can differentiate between a true equidistribution and a triangular distribution. The distinction succeeds even for small sample sizes where standard tests of significance (e.g. chi(2)) fail. Our method will have a major impact on several problems of computational biology where rare events baffle a reliable assessment of frequency distributions. The program package is available upon request from the authors.

Biometry↗

Clinical assessment of the Zeiss IOLMaster.

PURPOSE: To compare axial lengths and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations obtained with the Zeiss IOLMaster by 2 observers with different training grades and to assess the agreement between optical and acoustic biometry. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Pembury Hospital, The Laser Eye Clinic, Kent, United Kingdom. METHODS: In this prospective study, optical biometry was performed twice in 79 patients: first by a qualified ophthalmic nurse and second by 1 of several health care assistants without formal nursing training. In the same group of patients, the qualified nurse also obtained ultrasonic measurements to compare the 2 clinical methods. RESULTS: There was a high correlation coefficient for axial length and IOL power measurements (0.99 each) between the experienced examiner and the inexperienced examiners. The coefficient of repeatability (2 SD) was 0.58 diopter (D) for IOL power (mean 0.04 D) and 0.07 mm for the axial length (mean 0.00 mm). The correlation coefficient of IOLMaster measurements with A-scan measurements done by the same experienced ophthalmic nurse was 0.97 for IOL power and 0.98 for axial length. The limits of agreement (mean +/- 2 SD) were between +0.50 and -2.40 D for IOL power calculations and between +0.7 mm and -0.2 mm for axial length measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Optical biometry showed excellent repeatability using different examiners regardless of their medical training. The agreement with ultrasonic measurements and the precision of the method need further evaluation.

Biometry↗