학술논문

Using empirical Bayes predictors from generalized linear mixed models to test and visualize associations among longitudinal outcomes.
Document Type
Journal Article
Source
Statistical Methods in Medical Research. May2019, Vol. 28 Issue 5, p1399-1411. 13p.
Subject
*EMPIRICAL Bayes methods
*LONGITUDINAL method
*MEDICAL research
*MULTILEVEL models
*STOCHASTIC partial differential equations
*COMPARATIVE studies
*COMPUTER simulation
*EXPERIMENTAL design
*RESEARCH methodology
*MEDICAL cooperation
*PROBABILITY theory
*REGRESSION analysis
*RESEARCH
*EVALUATION research
Language
ISSN
0962-2802
Abstract
Medical research is often designed to investigate changes in a collection of response variables that are measured repeatedly on the same subjects. The multivariate generalized linear mixed model (MGLMM) can be used to evaluate random coefficient associations (e.g. simple correlations, partial regression coefficients) among outcomes that may be non-normal and differently distributed by specifying a multivariate normal distribution for their random effects and then evaluating the latent relationship between them. Empirical Bayes predictors are readily available for each subject from any mixed model and are observable and hence, plotable. Here, we evaluate whether second-stage association analyses of empirical Bayes predictors from a MGLMM, provide a good approximation and visual representation of these latent association analyses using medical examples and simulations. Additionally, we compare these results with association analyses of empirical Bayes predictors generated from separate mixed models for each outcome, a procedure that could circumvent computational problems that arise when the dimension of the joint covariance matrix of random effects is large and prohibits estimation of latent associations. As has been shown in other analytic contexts, the p-values for all second-stage coefficients that were determined by naively assuming normality of empirical Bayes predictors provide a good approximation to p-values determined via permutation analysis. Analyzing outcomes that are interrelated with separate models in the first stage and then associating the resulting empirical Bayes predictors in a second stage results in different mean and covariance parameter estimates from the maximum likelihood estimates generated by a MGLMM. The potential for erroneous inference from using results from these separate models increases as the magnitude of the association among the outcomes increases. Thus if computable, scatterplots of the conditionally independent empirical Bayes predictors from a MGLMM are always preferable to scatterplots of empirical Bayes predictors generated by separate models, unless the true association between outcomes is zero. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]