4.5 Article

Bias in 2-part mixed models for longitudinal semicontinuous data

期刊

BIOSTATISTICS
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 374-389

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxn044

关键词

Correlated random effects; Excess zeros; Outcome-dependent sampling; Repeated measures

资金

  1. Medical Research Council (UK) [U.1052.00.009]
  2. MRC [MC_U105261167] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U105261167] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Semicontinuous data in the form of a mixture of zeros and continuously distributed positive values frequently arise in biomedical research. Two-part mixed models with correlated random effects are an attractive approach to characterize the complex structure of longitudinal semicontinuous data. In practice, however, an independence assumption about random effects in these models may often be made for convenience and computational feasibility. In this article, we show that bias can be induced for regression coefficients when random effects are truly correlated but misspecified as independent in a 2-part mixed model. Paralleling work on bias under nonignorable missingness within a shared parameter model, we derive and investigate the asymptotic bias in selected settings for misspecified 2-part mixed models. The performance of these models in practice is further evaluated using Monte Carlo simulations. Additionally, the potential bias is investigated when artificial zeros, due to left censoring from some detection or measuring limit, are incorporated. To illustrate, we fit different 2-part mixed models to the data from the University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic, the aim being to examine whether there are differential effects of disease activity and damage on physical functioning as measured by the health assessment questionnaire scores over the course of psoriatic arthritis. Some practical issues on variance component estimation revealed through this data analysis are considered.

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

4.5
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