Local partial likelihood estimation in proportional hazards regression

Fan, Gijbels and King [Ann. Statist. 25 (1997) 1661--1690] considered the estimation of the risk function $\psi (x)$ in the proportional hazards model. Their proposed estimator is based on integrating the estimated derivative function obtained through a local version of the partial likelihood. They proved the large sample properties of the derivative function, but the large sample properties of the estimator for the risk function itself were not established. In this paper, we consider direct estimation of the relative risk function $\psi (x_2)-\psi (x_1)$ for any location normalization point $x_1$. The main novelty in our approach is that we select observations in shrinking neighborhoods of both $x_1$ and $x_2$ when constructing a local version of the partial likelihood, whereas Fan, Gijbels and King [Ann. Statist. 25 (1997) 1661--1690] only concentrated on a single neighborhood, resulting in the cancellation of the risk function in the local likelihood function. The asymptotic properties of our estimator are rigorously established and the variance of the estimator is easily estimated. The idea behind our approach is extended to estimate the differences between groups. A simulation study is carried out.Comment: Published at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/009053606000001299 in the Annals of Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aos/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Most Likely Transformations

We propose and study properties of maximum likelihood estimators in the class of conditional transformation models. Based on a suitable explicit parameterisation of the unconditional or conditional transformation function, we establish a cascade of increasingly complex transformation models that can be estimated, compared and analysed in the maximum likelihood framework. Models for the unconditional or conditional distribution function of any univariate response variable can be set-up and estimated in the same theoretical and computational framework simply by choosing an appropriate transformation function and parameterisation thereof. The ability to evaluate the distribution function directly allows us to estimate models based on the exact likelihood, especially in the presence of random censoring or truncation. For discrete and continuous responses, we establish the asymptotic normality of the proposed estimators. A reference software implementation of maximum likelihood-based estimation for conditional transformation models allowing the same flexibility as the theory developed here was employed to illustrate the wide range of possible applications.Comment: Accepted for publication by the Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 2017-06-1

Systematically missing confounders in individual participant data meta-analysis of observational cohort studies.

One difficulty in performing meta-analyses of observational cohort studies is that the availability of confounders may vary between cohorts, so that some cohorts provide fully adjusted analyses while others only provide partially adjusted analyses. Commonly, analyses of the association between an exposure and disease either are restricted to cohorts with full confounder information, or use all cohorts but do not fully adjust for confounding. We propose using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis model to use information from all available cohorts while still adjusting for all the potential confounders. Our method uses both the fully adjusted and the partially adjusted estimated effects in the cohorts with full confounder information, together with an estimate of their within-cohort correlation. The method is applied to estimate the association between fibrinogen level and coronary heart disease incidence using data from 154,012 participants in 31 cohort

Bayesian correction for covariate measurement error: a frequentist evaluation and comparison with regression calibration

Bayesian approaches for handling covariate measurement error are well established, and yet arguably are still relatively little used by researchers. For some this is likely due to unfamiliarity or disagreement with the Bayesian inferential paradigm. For others a contributory factor is the inability of standard statistical packages to perform such Bayesian analyses. In this paper we first give an overview of the Bayesian approach to handling covariate measurement error, and contrast it with regression calibration (RC), arguably the most commonly adopted approach. We then argue why the Bayesian approach has a number of statistical advantages compared to RC, and demonstrate that implementing the Bayesian approach is usually quite feasible for the analyst. Next we describe the closely related maximum likelihood and multiple imputation approaches, and explain why we believe the Bayesian approach to generally be preferable. We then empirically compare the frequentist properties of RC and the Bayesian approach through simulation studies. The flexibility of the Bayesian approach to handle both measurement error and missing data is then illustrated through an analysis of data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey