Equivalency Between the Generalized Bivariate Bernoulli Model Dependency Test and a Logistic Regression Model With Interaction Effects.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Kazi Md Farhad Mahmud, Yanming Li, Devin C Koestler
{"title":"Equivalency Between the Generalized Bivariate Bernoulli Model Dependency Test and a Logistic Regression Model With Interaction Effects.","authors":"Kazi Md Farhad Mahmud, Yanming Li, Devin C Koestler","doi":"10.1002/sim.70260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Binary endpoints measured at two timepoints-such as pre- and post-treatment-are common in biomedical and healthcare research. The Generalized Bivariate Bernoulli Model (GBBM) provides a specialized framework for analyzing such bivariate binary data, allowing for formal tests of covariate-dependent associations conditional on baseline outcomes. Despite its potential utility, the GBBM remains underutilized due to the lack of direct implementation in standard statistical software. Moreover, we contend that the comparison made in the original publication between the GBBM dependency test and the regressive logistic regression model has shortcomings and does not provide an ideal basis for evaluating the model's performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this paper, we propose a standard logistic regression model with an interaction term and demonstrate that it yields an equivalent dependency test to the GBBM approach. This equivalence is established conceptually, theoretically, and empirically. Extensive simulations compared the power of the GBBM dependency test with: (a) dependency test from the regressive logistic model; (b) test derived from the logistic regression model with interaction; and (c) the Pearson Chi-square test. We also applied these methods to infant mortality data from the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The power of the GBBM dependency test differs from the regressive logistic regression model used as a benchmark in the original paper that introduced the GBBM methodology. In contrast, the power and type 1-error rate of the GBBM dependency test and the logistic regression model with interaction described herein are equivalent across varying effect sizes and sample sizes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our work reveals that a widely available and flexible logistic regression model can serve as a practical alternative to the GBBM dependency test, enhancing accessibility for researchers. Moreover, this approach provides a foundation for extending dependency analyses to more complex longitudinal binary data structures, broadening its applicability in biomedical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":21879,"journal":{"name":"Statistics in Medicine","volume":"44 20-22","pages":"e70260"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.70260","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Binary endpoints measured at two timepoints-such as pre- and post-treatment-are common in biomedical and healthcare research. The Generalized Bivariate Bernoulli Model (GBBM) provides a specialized framework for analyzing such bivariate binary data, allowing for formal tests of covariate-dependent associations conditional on baseline outcomes. Despite its potential utility, the GBBM remains underutilized due to the lack of direct implementation in standard statistical software. Moreover, we contend that the comparison made in the original publication between the GBBM dependency test and the regressive logistic regression model has shortcomings and does not provide an ideal basis for evaluating the model's performance.

Methods: In this paper, we propose a standard logistic regression model with an interaction term and demonstrate that it yields an equivalent dependency test to the GBBM approach. This equivalence is established conceptually, theoretically, and empirically. Extensive simulations compared the power of the GBBM dependency test with: (a) dependency test from the regressive logistic model; (b) test derived from the logistic regression model with interaction; and (c) the Pearson Chi-square test. We also applied these methods to infant mortality data from the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS).

Results: The power of the GBBM dependency test differs from the regressive logistic regression model used as a benchmark in the original paper that introduced the GBBM methodology. In contrast, the power and type 1-error rate of the GBBM dependency test and the logistic regression model with interaction described herein are equivalent across varying effect sizes and sample sizes.

Conclusion: Our work reveals that a widely available and flexible logistic regression model can serve as a practical alternative to the GBBM dependency test, enhancing accessibility for researchers. Moreover, this approach provides a foundation for extending dependency analyses to more complex longitudinal binary data structures, broadening its applicability in biomedical research.

广义二元伯努利模型相关性检验与具有交互效应的Logistic回归模型的等价性。
背景:在两个时间点(如治疗前和治疗后)测量的双终点在生物医学和卫生保健研究中很常见。广义二元伯努利模型(GBBM)为分析这类二元数据提供了一个专门的框架,允许在基线结果条件下对协变量相关的关联进行正式测试。尽管GBBM具有潜在的效用,但由于在标准统计软件中缺乏直接实现,它仍未得到充分利用。此外,我们认为原始出版物中对GBBM依赖检验与回归逻辑回归模型的比较存在不足,不能为评估模型的性能提供理想的依据。方法:在本文中,我们提出了一个具有交互项的标准逻辑回归模型,并证明它对GBBM方法产生了等效的依赖检验。这种等价是在概念上、理论上和经验上建立起来的。大量的模拟比较了GBBM依赖检验与:(a)回归逻辑模型的依赖检验;(b)有交互作用的逻辑回归模型检验;(c) Pearson卡方检验。我们还将这些方法应用于孟加拉国人口与健康调查(BDHS)的婴儿死亡率数据。结果:GBBM依赖检验的效力不同于在介绍GBBM方法的原始论文中作为基准的回归逻辑回归模型。相比之下,本文描述的GBBM依赖检验和具有交互作用的逻辑回归模型的幂函数和1型错误率在不同的效应大小和样本量上是相等的。结论:我们的工作表明,一个广泛可用且灵活的逻辑回归模型可以作为GBBM依赖检验的实用替代方案,提高了研究人员的可及性。此外,该方法为将依赖分析扩展到更复杂的纵向二进制数据结构提供了基础,扩大了其在生物医学研究中的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Statistics in Medicine
Statistics in Medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
334
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal aims to influence practice in medicine and its associated sciences through the publication of papers on statistical and other quantitative methods. Papers will explain new methods and demonstrate their application, preferably through a substantive, real, motivating example or a comprehensive evaluation based on an illustrative example. Alternatively, papers will report on case-studies where creative use or technical generalizations of established methodology is directed towards a substantive application. Reviews of, and tutorials on, general topics relevant to the application of statistics to medicine will also be published. The main criteria for publication are appropriateness of the statistical methods to a particular medical problem and clarity of exposition. Papers with primarily mathematical content will be excluded. The journal aims to enhance communication between statisticians, clinicians and medical researchers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信