PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15515134

A permutation test for inference in logistic regression with small- and moderate-sized data sets.

Abstract

Inference based on large sample results can be highly inaccurate if applied to logistic regression with small data sets. Furthermore, maximum likelihood estimates for the regression parameters will on occasion not exist, and large sample results will be invalid. Exact conditional logistic regression is an alternative that can be used whether or not maximum likelihood estimates exist, but can be overly conservative. This approach also requires grouping the values of continuous variables corresponding to nuisance parameters, and inference can depend on how this is done. A simple permutation test of the hypothesis that a regression parameter is zero can overcome these limitations. The variable of interest is replaced by the residuals from a linear regression of it on all other independent variables. Logistic regressions are then done for permutations of these residuals, and a p-value is computed by comparing the resulting likelihood ratio statistics to the original observed value. Simulations of binary outcome data with two independent variables that have binary or lognormal distributions yield the following results: (a) in small data sets consisting of 20 observations, type I error is well-controlled by the permutation test, but poorly controlled by the asymptotic likelihood ratio test; (b) in large data sets consisting of 1000 observations, performance of the permutation test appears equivalent to that of the asymptotic test; and (c) in small data sets, the p-value for the permutation test is usually similar to the mid-p-value for exact conditional logistic regression.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Douglas M Potter. 2005-03-15. A permutation test for inference in logistic regression with small- and moderate-sized data sets.. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1931

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

On the exact interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under the ROC curves.

An important measure for comparison of accuracy between two diagnostic procedures is the difference in paired areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Non-parametric and maximum likelihood methods have been proposed for interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. However, these two methods are asymptotic procedures and their performance in finite sample sizes has not been thoroughly investigated. We propose to use the concept of generalized pivotal quantities (GPQs) to construct an exact confidence interval for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. A simulation study is conducted to empirically investigate the probability coverage and expected length of the three methods for various combinations of sample sizes, values of the area under the ROC curve and correlations. Simulation results demonstrate that the exact confidence interval based on the concept of GPQs provides not only sufficient probability coverage but also reasonable expected length. Numerical examples using published data sets illustrate the proposed method.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

An efficient test for the analysis of dichotomized variables when the reliability is known.

A difference in an outcome variable between the treatment groups in a trial does not necessarily mean that there is a difference in the number of patients who experience relevant improvement on that variable. When the relevant improvement corresponds with an outcome or change in outcome that exceeds a certain threshold, the outcome variable can be dichotomized. A responder is a patient whose outcome exceeds the threshold. Comparisons can be made between the number of responders in the two treatment groups using logistic regression, or some other method to evaluate binary outcomes. An important disadvantage of this approach is the loss of power. In general, it is more efficient to test the difference between the mean values. We developed a statistical test that compares response rates for a dichotomized variable. It requires that an estimate of the reliability of the outcome variable is available. Simulations showed that the test was valid and robust over a wide range of distributions and sample sizes. The power was greater than the power of a chi(2) test, which would enable substantial reduction in the sample size.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

Sample size determination for logistic regression revisited.

There is no consensus on the approach to compute the power and sample size with logistic regression. Some authors use the likelihood ratio test; some use the test on proportions; some suggest various approximations to handle the multivariate case. We advocate the use of the Wald test since the Z-score is routinely used for statistical significance testing of regression coefficients. The null-variance formula became popular from early studies, which contradicts modern software, which utilizes the method of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), when the variance of the MLE is estimated at the MLE, not at the null. We derive general Wald-based power and sample size formulas for logistic regression and then apply them to binary exposure and confounder to obtain a closed-form expression. These formulas are applied to minimize the total sample size in a case-control study to achieve a given power by optimizing the ratio of controls to cases. Approximately, the optimal number of controls to cases is equal to the square root of the alternative odds ratio. Our sample size and power calculations can be carried out online at www.dartmouth.edu/ approximately eugened.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗