不止一种方法:探索不同估计方法对纵向和时间到事件结果联合模型的能力。

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Anja Rappl, Andreas Mayr, Elisabeth Waldmann
{"title":"不止一种方法:探索不同估计方法对纵向和时间到事件结果联合模型的能力。","authors":"Anja Rappl,&nbsp;Andreas Mayr,&nbsp;Elisabeth Waldmann","doi":"10.1515/ijb-2020-0067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The development of physical functioning after a caesura in an aged population is still widely unexplored. Analysis of this topic would need to model the longitudinal trajectories of physical functioning and simultaneously take terminal events (deaths) into account. Separate analysis of both results in biased estimates, since it neglects the inherent connection between the two outcomes. Thus, this type of data generating process is best modelled jointly. To facilitate this several software applications were made available. They differ in model formulation, estimation technique (likelihood-based, Bayesian inference, statistical boosting) and a comparison of the different approaches is necessary to identify their capabilities and limitations. Therefore, we compared the performance of the packages JM, joineRML, JMbayes and JMboost of the R software environment with respect to estimation accuracy, variable selection properties and prediction precision. With these findings we then illustrate the topic of physical functioning after a caesura with data from the German ageing survey (DEAS). The results suggest that in smaller data sets and theory driven modelling likelihood-based methods (expectation maximation, JM, joineRML) or Bayesian inference (JMbayes) are preferable, whereas statistical boosting (JMboost) is a better choice with high-dimensional data and data exploration settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/ijb-2020-0067","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"More than one way: exploring the capabilities of different estimation approaches to joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Anja Rappl,&nbsp;Andreas Mayr,&nbsp;Elisabeth Waldmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ijb-2020-0067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The development of physical functioning after a caesura in an aged population is still widely unexplored. Analysis of this topic would need to model the longitudinal trajectories of physical functioning and simultaneously take terminal events (deaths) into account. Separate analysis of both results in biased estimates, since it neglects the inherent connection between the two outcomes. Thus, this type of data generating process is best modelled jointly. To facilitate this several software applications were made available. They differ in model formulation, estimation technique (likelihood-based, Bayesian inference, statistical boosting) and a comparison of the different approaches is necessary to identify their capabilities and limitations. Therefore, we compared the performance of the packages JM, joineRML, JMbayes and JMboost of the R software environment with respect to estimation accuracy, variable selection properties and prediction precision. With these findings we then illustrate the topic of physical functioning after a caesura with data from the German ageing survey (DEAS). The results suggest that in smaller data sets and theory driven modelling likelihood-based methods (expectation maximation, JM, joineRML) or Bayesian inference (JMbayes) are preferable, whereas statistical boosting (JMboost) is a better choice with high-dimensional data and data exploration settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/ijb-2020-0067\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2020-0067\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2020-0067","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

老年人口剖宫产后身体功能的发展仍未得到广泛探索。对这一主题的分析需要对身体功能的纵向轨迹进行建模,同时考虑到最终事件(死亡)。对这两种结果的单独分析结果是有偏差的估计,因为它忽略了两种结果之间的内在联系。因此,这种类型的数据生成过程最好是联合建模。为了促进这一点,提供了几个软件应用程序。它们在模型公式、估计技术(基于似然、贝叶斯推理、统计增强)方面有所不同,有必要对不同方法进行比较,以确定它们的能力和局限性。因此,我们比较了R软件环境中的JM、joineRML、JMbayes和JMboost包在估计精度、变量选择属性和预测精度方面的性能。有了这些发现,我们然后用德国老龄化调查(DEAS)的数据说明了暂停后身体功能的主题。结果表明,在较小的数据集和理论驱动的建模中,基于似然的方法(期望最大化,JM, joineRML)或贝叶斯推理(JMbayes)是更好的选择,而统计增强(JMboost)是高维数据和数据探索设置的更好选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
More than one way: exploring the capabilities of different estimation approaches to joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes.

The development of physical functioning after a caesura in an aged population is still widely unexplored. Analysis of this topic would need to model the longitudinal trajectories of physical functioning and simultaneously take terminal events (deaths) into account. Separate analysis of both results in biased estimates, since it neglects the inherent connection between the two outcomes. Thus, this type of data generating process is best modelled jointly. To facilitate this several software applications were made available. They differ in model formulation, estimation technique (likelihood-based, Bayesian inference, statistical boosting) and a comparison of the different approaches is necessary to identify their capabilities and limitations. Therefore, we compared the performance of the packages JM, joineRML, JMbayes and JMboost of the R software environment with respect to estimation accuracy, variable selection properties and prediction precision. With these findings we then illustrate the topic of physical functioning after a caesura with data from the German ageing survey (DEAS). The results suggest that in smaller data sets and theory driven modelling likelihood-based methods (expectation maximation, JM, joineRML) or Bayesian inference (JMbayes) are preferable, whereas statistical boosting (JMboost) is a better choice with high-dimensional data and data exploration settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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