A simulation study of diagnostics for bias in non-probability samples

A non-probability sampling mechanism is likely to bias estimates of parameters with respect to a target population of interest. This bias poses a unique challenge when selection is \u27non-ignorable\u27, i.e. dependent upon the unobserved outcome of interest, since it is then undetectable and thus cannot be ameliorated. We extend a simulation study by Nishimura et al. [International Statistical Review, 84, 43--62 (2016)], adding a recently published statistic, the so-called \u27standardized measure of unadjusted bias\u27, which explicitly quantifies the extent of bias under the assumption that a specified amount of non-ignorable selection exists. Our findings suggest that this new sensitivity diagnostic is considerably correlated with, and more predictive of, the true, unknown extent of selection bias than other diagnostics, even when the underlying assumed level of non-ignorability is incorrect

Rooting gene trees without outgroups: EP rooting.

Gene sequences are routinely used to determine the topologies of unrooted phylogenetic trees, but many of the most important questions in evolution require knowing both the topologies and the roots of trees. However, general algorithms for calculating rooted trees from gene and genomic sequences in the absence of gene paralogs are few. Using the principles of evolutionary parsimony (EP) (Lake JA. 1987a. A rate-independent technique for analysis of nucleic acid sequences: evolutionary parsimony. Mol Biol Evol. 4:167-181) and its extensions (Cavender, J. 1989. Mechanized derivation of linear invariants. Mol Biol Evol. 6:301-316; Nguyen T, Speed TP. 1992. A derivation of all linear invariants for a nonbalanced transversion model. J Mol Evol. 35:60-76), we explicitly enumerate all linear invariants that solely contain rooting information and derive algorithms for rooting gene trees directly from gene and genomic sequences. These new EP linear rooting invariants allow one to determine rooted trees, even in the complete absence of outgroups and gene paralogs. EP rooting invariants are explicitly derived for three taxon trees, and rules for their extension to four or more taxa are provided. The method is demonstrated using 18S ribosomal DNA to illustrate how the new animal phylogeny (Aguinaldo AMA et al. 1997. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods, and other moulting animals. Nature 387:489-493; Lake JA. 1990. Origin of the metazoa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:763-766) may be rooted directly from sequences, even when they are short and paralogs are unavailable. These results are consistent with the current root (Philippe H et al. 2011. Acoelomorph flatworms are deuterostomes related to Xenoturbella. Nature 470:255-260)

Rooting gene trees without outgroups: EP rooting.

Gene sequences are routinely used to determine the topologies of unrooted phylogenetic trees, but many of the most important questions in evolution require knowing both the topologies and the roots of trees. However, general algorithms for calculating rooted trees from gene and genomic sequences in the absence of gene paralogs are few. Using the principles of evolutionary parsimony (EP) (Lake JA. 1987a. A rate-independent technique for analysis of nucleic acid sequences: evolutionary parsimony. Mol Biol Evol. 4:167-181) and its extensions (Cavender, J. 1989. Mechanized derivation of linear invariants. Mol Biol Evol. 6:301-316; Nguyen T, Speed TP. 1992. A derivation of all linear invariants for a nonbalanced transversion model. J Mol Evol. 35:60-76), we explicitly enumerate all linear invariants that solely contain rooting information and derive algorithms for rooting gene trees directly from gene and genomic sequences. These new EP linear rooting invariants allow one to determine rooted trees, even in the complete absence of outgroups and gene paralogs. EP rooting invariants are explicitly derived for three taxon trees, and rules for their extension to four or more taxa are provided. The method is demonstrated using 18S ribosomal DNA to illustrate how the new animal phylogeny (Aguinaldo AMA et al. 1997. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods, and other moulting animals. Nature 387:489-493; Lake JA. 1990. Origin of the metazoa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:763-766) may be rooted directly from sequences, even when they are short and paralogs are unavailable. These results are consistent with the current root (Philippe H et al. 2011. Acoelomorph flatworms are deuterostomes related to Xenoturbella. Nature 470:255-260)

Framework for the treatment and reporting of missing data in observational studies: The Treatment And Reporting of Missing data in Observational Studies framework

Missing data are ubiquitous in medical research. Although there is increasing guidance on how to handle missing data, practice is changing slowly and misapprehensions abound, particularly in observational research. Importantly, the lack of transparency around methodological decisions is threatening the validity and reproducibility of modern research. We present a practical framework for handling and reporting the analysis of incomplete data in observational studies, which we illustrate using a case study from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. The framework consists of three steps: 1) Develop an analysis plan specifying the analysis model and how missing data are going to be addressed. An important consideration is whether a complete records’ analysis is likely to be valid, whether multiple imputation or an alternative approach is likely to offer benefits and whether a sensitivity analysis regarding the missingness mechanism is required; 2) Examine the data, checking the methods outlined in the analysis plan are appropriate, and conduct the preplanned analysis; and 3) Report the results, including a description of the missing data, details on how the missing data were addressed, and the results from all analyses, interpreted in light of the missing data and the clinical relevance. This framework seeks to support researchers in thinking systematically about missing data and transparently reporting the potential effect on the study results, therefore increasing the confidence in and reproducibility of research findings. © 2021 The Author(s)Open access articleThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]