3.8 Article

Statistical Methods for Generalized Linear Models with Covariates Subject to Detection Limits

期刊

STATISTICS IN BIOSCIENCES
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 68-89

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12561-013-9099-4

关键词

Censored predictor; Complete case; Conditional mean imputation; Detection limit; Improper multiple imputation

资金

  1. NSF [DMS-1007420, DMS-1149355]
  2. HIH [R01 CA85848-12]
  3. NIH/NIAID [R37 AI031789-20]
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Mathematical Sciences [1149355] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Censored observations are a common occurrence in biomedical data sets. Although a large amount of research has been devoted to estimation and inference for data with censored responses, very little research has focused on proper statistical procedures when predictors are censored. In this paper, we consider statistical methods for dealing with multiple predictors subject to detection limits within the context of generalized linear models. We investigate and adapt several conventional methods and develop a new multiple imputation approach for analyzing data sets with predictors censored due to detection limits. We establish the consistency and asymptotic normality of the proposed multiple imputation estimator and suggest a computationally simple and consistent variance estimator. We also demonstrate that the conditional mean imputation method often leads to inconsistent estimates in generalized linear models, while several other methods are either computationally intensive or lead to parameter estimates that are biased or more variable compared to the proposed multiple imputation estimator. In an extensive simulation study, we assess the bias and variability of different approaches within the context of a logistic regression model and compare variance estimation methods for the proposed multiple imputation estimator. Lastly, we apply several methods to analyze the data set from a recently-conducted GenIMS study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据