Modeling of Clinical Phenotypes Assessed at Discrete Study Visits.

Q3 Mathematics
Epidemiologic Methods Pub Date : 2019-12-01 Epub Date: 2019-08-02 DOI:10.1515/em-2018-0011
Emily J Huang, Ravi Varadhan, Michelle C Carlson
{"title":"Modeling of Clinical Phenotypes Assessed at Discrete Study Visits.","authors":"Emily J Huang,&nbsp;Ravi Varadhan,&nbsp;Michelle C Carlson","doi":"10.1515/em-2018-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In studies of clinical phenotypes, such as dementia, disability, and frailty, participants are typically assessed at in-person clinic visits. Thus, the precise time of onset for the phenotype is unknown. The discreteness of the clinic visits yields grouped event time data. We investigate how to perform a risk factor analysis in the case of grouped data. Since visits can be months to years apart, numbers of ties can be large, causing the exact tie-handling method of the Cox model to be computationally infeasible. We propose two, new, computationally efficient approximations to the exact method: Laplace approximation and an analytic approximation. Through extensive simulation studies, we compare these new methods to the Prentice-Gloeckler model and the Cox model using Efron's and Breslow's tie-handling methods. In addition, we compare the methods in an application to a large cohort study (<i>N</i> = 3,605) on the development of clinical frailty in older adults. In our simulations, the Laplace approximation has low bias in all settings, and the analytic approximation has low bias in settings where the regression coefficient is not large in magnitude. Their corresponding confidence intervals also have approximately the nominal coverage probability. In the data application, the results from the approximations are nearly identical to that of the Prentice-Gloeckler model.</p>","PeriodicalId":37999,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/em-2018-0011","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/em-2018-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/8/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In studies of clinical phenotypes, such as dementia, disability, and frailty, participants are typically assessed at in-person clinic visits. Thus, the precise time of onset for the phenotype is unknown. The discreteness of the clinic visits yields grouped event time data. We investigate how to perform a risk factor analysis in the case of grouped data. Since visits can be months to years apart, numbers of ties can be large, causing the exact tie-handling method of the Cox model to be computationally infeasible. We propose two, new, computationally efficient approximations to the exact method: Laplace approximation and an analytic approximation. Through extensive simulation studies, we compare these new methods to the Prentice-Gloeckler model and the Cox model using Efron's and Breslow's tie-handling methods. In addition, we compare the methods in an application to a large cohort study (N = 3,605) on the development of clinical frailty in older adults. In our simulations, the Laplace approximation has low bias in all settings, and the analytic approximation has low bias in settings where the regression coefficient is not large in magnitude. Their corresponding confidence intervals also have approximately the nominal coverage probability. In the data application, the results from the approximations are nearly identical to that of the Prentice-Gloeckler model.

在离散研究访问中评估临床表型的建模。
在临床表型的研究中,如痴呆、残疾和虚弱,参与者通常在亲自诊所就诊时进行评估。因此,确切的发病时间为表型是未知的。诊所访问的离散性产生分组事件时间数据。我们研究如何在分组数据的情况下进行风险因素分析。由于访问可能相隔数月至数年,因此联系的数量可能很大,导致Cox模型的确切联系处理方法在计算上不可行。我们提出了两种新的、计算效率高的近似方法:拉普拉斯近似和解析近似。通过广泛的模拟研究,我们将这些新方法与Prentice-Gloeckler模型以及使用Efron和Breslow的捆绑处理方法的Cox模型进行了比较。此外,我们将这些方法应用于一项大型队列研究(N = 3,605),研究老年人临床虚弱的发展。在我们的模拟中,拉普拉斯近似在所有设置中都具有低偏差,而解析近似在回归系数不是很大的设置中具有低偏差。它们对应的置信区间也近似于名义覆盖概率。在数据应用中,近似的结果与Prentice-Gloeckler模型的结果几乎相同。
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
Epidemiologic Methods
Epidemiologic Methods Mathematics-Applied Mathematics
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Epidemiologic Methods (EM) seeks contributions comparable to those of the leading epidemiologic journals, but also invites papers that may be more technical or of greater length than what has traditionally been allowed by journals in epidemiology. Applications and examples with real data to illustrate methodology are strongly encouraged but not required. Topics. genetic epidemiology, infectious disease, pharmaco-epidemiology, ecologic studies, environmental exposures, screening, surveillance, social networks, comparative effectiveness, statistical modeling, causal inference, measurement error, study design, meta-analysis
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信