High-dimensional maximum marginal likelihood item factor analysis by adaptive quadrature

Although the Bock–Aitkin likelihood-based estimation method for factor analysis of dichotomous item response data has important advantages over classical analysis of item tetrachoric correlations, a serious limitation of the method is its reliance on fixed-point Gauss-Hermite (G-H) quadrature in the solution of the likelihood equations and likelihood-ratio tests. When the number of latent dimensions is large, computational considerations require that the number of quadrature points per dimension be few. But with large numbers of items, the dispersion of the likelihood, given the response pattern, becomes so small that the likelihood cannot be accurately evaluated with the sparse fixed points in the latent space. In this paper, we demonstrate that substantial improvement in accuracy can be obtained by adapting the quadrature points to the location and dispersion of the likelihood surfaces corresponding to each distinct pattern in the data. In particular, we show that adaptive G-H quadrature, combined with mean and covariance adjustments at each iteration of an EM algorithm, produces an accurate fast-converging solution with as few as two points per dimension. Evaluations of this method with simulated data are shown to yield accurate recovery of the generating factor loadings for models of upto eight dimensions. Unlike an earlier application of adaptive Gibbs sampling to this problem by Meng and Schilling, the simulations also confirm the validity of the present method in calculating likelihood-ratio chi-square statistics for determining the number of factors required in the model. Finally, we apply the method to a sample of real data from a test of teacher qualifications.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43596/1/11336_2003_Article_1141.pd

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Factor and ideal point analysis for interpersonally incomparable data

interpersonally incomparable responses, rankings, factor analysis, ideal-point analysis, ordinal data,