Torfinn Støve Madssen, Age Smilde, Jose Camacho, Anders Hagen Jarmund, Johan Westerhuis, Guro F. Giskeødegård
{"title":"Statistical Validation of Multivariate Treatment Effects in Longitudinal Study Designs","authors":"Torfinn Støve Madssen, Age Smilde, Jose Camacho, Anders Hagen Jarmund, Johan Westerhuis, Guro F. Giskeødegård","doi":"10.1002/cem.70044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Multivariate extensions of repeated measures linear mixed models, such as repeated measures ANOVA simultaneous component analysis (RM-ASCA+) and linear mixed model-principal component analysis (LiMM-PCA), can be used for analyzing longitudinal studies with multivariate outcomes. However, there are no gold standards to assess the statistical validation of the observed effects of such models. Using real and simulated data, we here perform an empirical comparison of different strategies for assessing statistical significance in these frameworks: permutation tests, the global log-likelihood ratio (GLLR) test, and nonparametric bootstrap confidence intervals for the estimated multivariate effects. Power curves were used to examine the statistical power of the different tests in detecting time–treatment interactions with varying effect sizes. Our results show that both the permutation tests and the GLLR test can be used to statistically test the presence of a time–treatment interaction effect for multivariate data; however, the GLLR approach will be sensitive to the number of included principal components in LiMM-PCA. The bootstrap confidence interval approach generally shows good statistical power but has inflated Type 1 error rates under certain conditions. This makes it unsuitable for the purpose of hypothesis testing in its present implementation, although it may still be useful for exploratory purposes. Overall, our results show that the power of the tests for assessing multivariate effects in longitudinal studies is dependent on characteristics of the dataset, and it is important to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the different validation procedures.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15274,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chemometrics","volume":"39 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chemometrics","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cem.70044","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Multivariate extensions of repeated measures linear mixed models, such as repeated measures ANOVA simultaneous component analysis (RM-ASCA+) and linear mixed model-principal component analysis (LiMM-PCA), can be used for analyzing longitudinal studies with multivariate outcomes. However, there are no gold standards to assess the statistical validation of the observed effects of such models. Using real and simulated data, we here perform an empirical comparison of different strategies for assessing statistical significance in these frameworks: permutation tests, the global log-likelihood ratio (GLLR) test, and nonparametric bootstrap confidence intervals for the estimated multivariate effects. Power curves were used to examine the statistical power of the different tests in detecting time–treatment interactions with varying effect sizes. Our results show that both the permutation tests and the GLLR test can be used to statistically test the presence of a time–treatment interaction effect for multivariate data; however, the GLLR approach will be sensitive to the number of included principal components in LiMM-PCA. The bootstrap confidence interval approach generally shows good statistical power but has inflated Type 1 error rates under certain conditions. This makes it unsuitable for the purpose of hypothesis testing in its present implementation, although it may still be useful for exploratory purposes. Overall, our results show that the power of the tests for assessing multivariate effects in longitudinal studies is dependent on characteristics of the dataset, and it is important to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the different validation procedures.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Chemometrics is devoted to the rapid publication of original scientific papers, reviews and short communications on fundamental and applied aspects of chemometrics. It also provides a forum for the exchange of information on meetings and other news relevant to the growing community of scientists who are interested in chemometrics and its applications. Short, critical review papers are a particularly important feature of the journal, in view of the multidisciplinary readership at which it is aimed.