Deductive semiparametric estimation in Double-Sampling Designs with application to PEPFAR

Non-ignorable dropout is common in studies with long follow-up time, and it can bias study results unless handled carefully. A double-sampling design allocates additional resources to pursue a subsample of the dropouts and find out their outcomes, which can address potential biases due to non-ignorable dropout. It is desirable to construct semiparametric estimators for the double-sampling design because of their robustness properties. However, obtaining such semiparametric estimators remains a challenge due to the requirement of the analytic form of the efficient influence function (EIF), the derivation of which can be ad hoc and difficult for the double-sampling design. Recent work has shown how the derivation of EIF can be made deductive and computerizable using the functional derivative representation of the EIF in nonparametric models. This approach, however, requires deriving the mixture of a continuous distribution and a point mass, which can itself be challenging for complicated problems such as the double-sampling design. We propose semiparametric estimators for the survival probability in double-sampling designs by generalizing the deductive and computerizable estimation approach. In particular, we propose to build the semiparametric estimators based on a discretized support structure, which approximates the possibly continuous observed data distribution and circumvents the derivation of the mixture distribution. Our approach is deductive in the sense that it is expected to produce semiparametric locally efficient estimators within finite steps without knowledge of the EIF. We apply the proposed estimators to estimating the mortality rate in a double-sampling design component of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program. We evaluate the impact of double-sampling selection criteria on the mortality rate estimates

Designs in Partially Controlled Studies: Messages from a Review

The ability to evaluate effects of factors on outcomes is increasingly important for a class of studies that control some but not all of the factors. Although important advances have been made in methods of analysis for such partially controlled studies,work on designs for such studies has been relatively limited. To help understand why, we review main designs that have been used for such partially controlled studies. Based on the review, we give two complementary reasons that explain the limited work on such designs, and suggest a new direction in this area

A BROAD SYMMETRY CRITERION FOR NONPARAMETRIC VALIDITY OF PARAMETRICALLY-BASED TESTS IN RANDOMIZED TRIALS

Summary. Pilot phases of a randomized clinical trial often suggest that a parametric model may be an accurate description of the trial\u27s longitudinal trajectories. However, parametric models are often not used for fear that they may invalidate tests of null hypotheses of equality between the experimental groups. Existing work has shown that when, for some types of data, certain parametric models are used, the validity for testing the null is preserved even if the parametric models are incorrect. Here, we provide a broader and easier to check characterization of parametric models that can be used to (a) preserve nonparametric validity of testing the null hypothesis, i.e., even when the models are incorrect, and (b) increase power compared to the non- or semiparametric bounds when the models are close to correct. We demonstrate our results in a clinical trial of depression in Alzheimer\u27s patients

THE ROLE OF AN EXPLICIT CAUSAL FRAMEWORK IN AFFECTED SIB PAIR DESIGNS WITH COVARIATES

The affected sib/relative pair (ASP/ARP) design is often used with covariates to find genes that can cause a disease in pathways other than through those covariates. However, such covariates can themselves have genetic determinants, and the validity of existing methods has so far only been argued under implicit assumptions. We propose an explicit causal formulation of the problem using potential outcomes and principal stratification. The general role of this formulation is to identify and separate the meaning of the different assumptions that can provide valid causal inference in linkage analysis. This separation helps to (a) develop better methods under explicit assumptions, and (b) show the different ways in which these assumptions can fail, which is necessary for developing further specific designs to test these assumptions and confirm or improve the inference. Using this formulation in the specific problem above, we show that, when the covariate (e.g., addiction to smoking) also has genetic determinants, then existing methods, including those previously thought as valid, can declare linkage between the disease and marker loci even when no such linkage exists. We also introduce design strategies to address the problem

Deductive Derivation and Computerization of Compatible Semiparametric Efficient Estimation

Researchers often seek robust inference for a parameter through semiparametric estimation. Efficient semiparametric estimation currently requires theoretical derivation of the efficient influence function (EIF), which can be a challenging and time-consuming task. If this task can be computerized, it can save dramatic human effort, which can be transferred, for example, to the design of new studies. Although the EIF is, in principle, a derivative, simple numerical differentiation to calculate the EIF by a computer masks the EIF\u27s functional dependence on the parameter of interest. For this reason, the standard approach to obtaining the EIF has been the theoretical construction of the space of scores under all possible parametric submodels. This process currently depends on the correctness of conjectures about these spaces, and the correct verification of such conjectures. The correct guessing of such conjectures, though successful in some problems, is a nondeductive process, i.e., is not guaranteed to succeed (e.g., is not computerizable), and the verification of conjectures is generally susceptible to mistakes. We propose a method that can deductively produce semiparametric locally efficient estimators. The proposed method is computerizable, meaning that it does not need either conjecturing for, or otherwise theoretically deriving the functional form of the EIF, and is guaranteed to produce the result. The method is demonstared through an example

Choosing profile double-sampling designs for survival estimation with application to PEPFAR evaluation

Most studies that follow subjects over time are challenged by having some subjects who dropout. Double sampling is a design that selects and devotes resources to intensively pursue and find a subset of these dropouts, then uses data obtained from these to adjust naïve estimates, which are potentially biased by the dropout. Existing methods to estimate survival from double sampling assume a random sample. In limited-resource settings, however, generating accurate estimates using a minimum of resources is important. We propose using double-sampling designs that oversample certain profiles of dropouts as more efficient alternatives to random designs. First, we develop a framework to estimate the survival function under these profile double-sampling designs. We then derive the precision of these designs as a function of the rule for selecting different profiles, in order to identify more efficient designs. We illustrate using data from the United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief-funded HIV care and treatment program in western Kenya. Our results show why and how more efficient designs should oversample patients with shorter dropout times. Further, our work suggests generalizable practice for more efficient double-sampling designs, which can help maximize efficiency in resource-limited settings

Estimating effects by combining instrumental variables with case-control designs: the role of principal stratification

The instrumental variable framework is commonly used in the estimation of causal effects from cohort samples. In the case of more efficient designs such as the case-control study, however, the combination of the instrumental variable and complex sampling designs requires new methodological consideration. As the prevalence of Mendelian randomization studies is increasing and the cost of genotyping and expression data can be high, the analysis of data gathered from more cost-effective sampling designs is of prime interest. We show that the standard instrumental variable analysis is not applicable to the case-control design and can lead to erroneous estimation and inference. We also propose a method based on principal stratification for the analysis of data arising from the combination of case-control sampling and instrumental variable design and illustrate it with a study in oncology

The Role of Language Severity and Education in Explaining Performance on Object and Action Naming in Primary Progressive Aphasia

Despite the common assumption that atrophy in a certain brain area would compromise the function that it subserves, this is not always the case, especially in complex clinical syndromes such as primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Clinical and demographic information may contribute to PPA phenotypes and explain the manifested impairments better than atrophy. In the present study, we asked how much variance of the object and action naming impairments observed in PPA may be attributed to atrophy in the language network alone vs. additional clinical and demographic factors including language severity and education. Thirty-nine participants with PPA underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for volumetric analysis and a complete neuropsychological examination, including standardized tests of object and action naming. We used stepwise regression models to compare atrophy (volumetric model) to clinical/demographic variables (clinical-demographic model) for naming objects and actions. The clinical-demographic model was the best-fit model that explained the largest amount of variance in both object and action naming. Brain volume measurements alone explained little variance in both object and action naming. Clinical factors, particularly language severity, and demographic factors, particularly education, need to be considered in conjunction with brain volumes in PPA. The present study emphasizes the complexity of PPA as a syndrome and provides an example of how volumetric, clinical and demographic factors may interact in determining naming performance/deterioration