Contributions To The Analysis Of Familial Data

A unified noniterative approach to point and interval estimation of interclass and intraclass correlations is presented in the context of family studies where there may be more than one individual in each of two classes. The procedure involves a generalization of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, where one permits different weights for the pairs of scores. Unlike the maximum likelihood approach, these estimators are not derived under the assumption of a particular parametric form nor do they require an iterative solution.;The asymptotic distributions of the generalized product-moment estimator and of the maximum likelihood estimator are derived under the assumption of normality. Subsequently, a Monte Carlo study is carried out to examine the asymptotic and small sample properties of these estimators under different weighting schemes. Also, several methods for constructing confidence intervals about the interclass correlation parameter are discussed, and the effectiveness of these methods is evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation.;It is recommended that for family studies, the individual-weighted estimator be used as a point estimator of interclass correlations and the method based upon a modification of Fisher\u27s Z-transformation be used for interval estimation. In addition, it is recommended that the weighted pairwise estimator using the proposed weighting scheme replace the analysis of variance estimator in the estimation of intraclass correlations.;Although the focus of this dissertation is on the analysis of familial data, the methods discussed are applicable to more general situations, including the assessment of correlations between any two variables where each variable is replicated a different number of times for each sample unit

Allergies and major depression: a longitudinal community study

© 2009 Patten et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Causal assessment of dietary acid load and bone disease: a systematic review & meta-analysis applying Hill's epidemiologic criteria for causality

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Modern diets have been suggested to increase systemic acid load and net acid excretion. In response, alkaline diets and products are marketed to avoid or counteract this acid, help the body regulate its pH to prevent and cure disease. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate causal relationships between dietary acid load and osteoporosis using Hill's criteria.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Systematic review and meta-analysis. We systematically searched published literature for randomized intervention trials, prospective cohort studies, and meta-analyses of the acid-ash or acid-base diet hypothesis with bone-related outcomes, in which the diet acid load was altered, or an alkaline diet or alkaline salts were provided, to healthy human adults. Cellular mechanism studies were also systematically examined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifty-five of 238 studies met the inclusion criteria: 22 randomized interventions, 2 meta-analyses, and 11 prospective observational studies of bone health outcomes including: urine calcium excretion, calcium balance or retention, changes of bone mineral density, or fractures, among healthy adults in which acid and/or alkaline intakes were manipulated or observed through foods or supplements; and 19 <it>in vitro </it>cell studies which examined the hypothesized mechanism. Urine calcium excretion rates were consistent with osteoporosis development; however calcium balance studies did not demonstrate loss of whole body calcium with higher net acid excretion. Several weaknesses regarding the acid-ash hypothesis were uncovered: No intervention studies provided direct evidence of osteoporosis progression (fragility fractures, or bone strength as measured using biopsy). The supporting prospective cohort studies were not controlled regarding important osteoporosis risk factors including: weight loss during follow-up, family history of osteoporosis, baseline bone mineral density, and estrogen status. No study revealed a biologic mechanism functioning at physiological pH. Finally, randomized studies did not provide evidence for an adverse role of phosphate, milk, and grain foods in osteoporosis.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A causal association between dietary acid load and osteoporotic bone disease is not supported by evidence and there is no evidence that an alkaline diet is protective of bone health.</p

Carotid plaque area: A tool for targeting and evaluating vascular preventive therapy

Background and Purpose - Carotid plaque area measured by ultrasound (cross-sectional area of longitudinal views of all plaques seen) was studied as a way of identifying patients at increased risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. Methods - Patients from an atherosclerosis prevention clinic were followed up annually for up to 5 years (mean, 2.5±1.3 years) with baseline and follow-up measurements recorded. Plaque area progression (or regression) was defined as an increase (or decrease) of ≥0.05 cm2 from baseline. Results - Carotid plaque areas from 1686 patients were categorized into 4 quartile ranges: 0.00 to 0.11 cm2 (n=422), 0.12 to 0.45 cm2 (n=424), 0.46 to 1.18 cm2 (n=421), and 1.19 to 6.73 cm2 (n=419). The combined 5-year risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death increased by quartile of plaque area: 5.6%, 10.7%, 13.9%, and 19.5%, respectively (P\u3c0.001) after adjustment for all baseline patient characteristics. A total of 1085 patients had ≥1 annual carotid plaque area measurements: 685 (63.1%) had carotid plaque progression, 306 (28.2%) had plaque regression, and 176 (16.2%) had no change in carotid plaque area over the period of follow-up. The 5-year adjusted risk of combined outcome was 9.4%, 7.6%, and 15.7% for patients with carotid plaque area regression, no change, and progression, respectively (P=0.003). Conclusions - Carotid plaque area and progression of plaque identified high-risk patients. Plaque measurement may be useful for targeting preventive therapy and evaluating new treatments and response to therapy and may improve cost-effectiveness of secondary preventive treatment

The Pittsburgh randomized trial of tacrolimus compared to cyclosporine for hepatic transplantation

BACKGROUND: Tacrolimus (formerly FK 506) was first used clinically in 1989 to successfully replace cyclosporine in hepatic transplant recipients who were experiencing intractable rejection or as the baseline drug from the time of operation. After extensive pilot experience, an institutional review board-mandated clinical trial comparing cyclosporine with tacrolimus was performed. STUDY DESIGN: From February 16, 1990 to December 26, 1991, 154 patients were recruited. The competing drugs were combined with equal induction doses of prednisone in both arms of the study for the first 81 patients and with subsequently higher doses of prednisone in the remaining 35 patients who received cyclosporine and were entered into the trial. Drug crossover was permitted for lack of efficacy or adverse events. End points were rejection confirmed by biopsy and treatment failure leading to retransplantation or death. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were randomized to the tacrolimus arm and 75 to the cyclosporine arm during 1990 and 1991. All patients were available for follow-up throughout the trial, which terminated on May 30, 1995. The mean duration of follow-up was four years. Patients randomized to the tacrolimus arm were less likely to experience acute rejection than were those receiving cyclosporine, with 36.2 percent of the patients receiving tacrolimus and 16.8 percent of the patients receiving cyclosporine showing freedom from rejection at one year (p=0.003, likelihood ratio test). Survival of patients over the course of the study was virtually the same in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus was more effective than cyclosporine in preventing acute rejection

Outcome assessment by central adjudicators in randomised stroke trials: Simulation of differential and non-differential misclassification

INTRODUCTION: Adjudication of the primary outcome in randomised trials is thought to control misclassification. We investigated the amount of misclassification needed before adjudication changed the primary trial results. Patients (or materials) and methods: We included data from five randomised stroke trials. Differential misclassification was introduced for each primary outcome until the estimated treatment effect was altered. This was simulated 1000 times. We calculated the between-simulation mean proportion of participants that needed to be differentially misclassified to alter the treatment effect. In addition, we simulated hypothetical trials with a binary outcome and varying sample size (1000–10,000), overall event rate (10%–50%) and treatment effect (0.67–0.90). We introduced non-differential misclassification until the treatment effect was non-significant at 5% level. RESULTS: For the five trials, the range of unweighted kappa values were reduced from 0.89–0.97 to 0.65–0.85 before the treatment effect was altered. This corresponded to 2.1%–6% of participants misclassified differentially for trials with a binary outcome. For the hypothetical trials, those with a larger sample size, stronger treatment effect and overall event rate closer to 50% needed a higher proportion of events non-differentially misclassified before the treatment effect became non-significant. DISCUSSION: We found that only a small amount of differential misclassification was required before adjudication altered the primary trial results, whereas a considerable proportion of participants needed to be misclassified non-differentially before adjudication changed trial conclusions. Given that differential misclassification should not occur in trials with sufficient blinding, these results suggest that central adjudication is of most use in studies with unblinded outcome assessment. CONCLUSION: For trials without adequate blinding, central adjudication is vital to control for differential misclassification. However, for large blinded trials, adjudication is of less importance and may not be necessary