Measurement Error as a Missing Data Problem

This thesis presents a comprehensive exploration of linear mixed models that incorporate measurement errors in specific covariates for longitudinal data with non-ignorable and non-monotone missing responses. The primary objective is to estimate mean response parameters and variance components utilizing a combined methodology of Regression Calibration (RC) and Monte Carlo EM. The investigation begins with an in-depth examination of the RC method applied to linear mixed models, particularly its adaptation to longitudinal data with covariates affected by measurement errors. A thorough simulation study is conducted, involving various mean response functions, revealing that the RC method produces unbiased and efficient estimators in scenarios where the true underlying model includes covariates with measurement errors. Subsequently, linear mixed models are introduced for longitudinal data with non-ignorable missing responses. The thesis proposes a semi-parametric Monte Carlo EM algorithm for the simultaneous estimation of regression parameters and variance components in linear mixed models with non-ignorable and non-monotone missing responses, combining the Monte Carlo EM algorithm of Ibrahim et al. and the RC method. The simulation study demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed method, even in the presence of a substantial proportion of non-ignorable missing responses. The thesis concludes with an application of the proposed RC-MCEM method to actual longitudinal data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), focusing on individuals with alcoholism and exploring how measurement errors in certain covariates can introduce biases in parameter estimation. The complexity of the problem is further elucidated when missingness occurs in the response variable.

In this paper, we consider variable selection for ultra-high dimensional quantile regression model with missing data and measurement errors in covariates. Specifically, we correct the bias in the loss function caused by measurement error by applying the orthogonal quantile regression approach and remove the bias caused by missing data using the inverse probability weighting. A nonconvex Atan penalized estimation method is proposed for simultaneous variable selection and estimation. With the proper choice of the regularization parameter and under some relaxed conditions, we show that the proposed estimate enjoys the oracle properties. The choice of smoothing parameters is also discussed. The performance of the proposed variable selection procedure is assessed by Monte Carlo simulation studies. We further demonstrate the proposed procedure with a breast cancer data set.

It has been well known that ignoring measurement error may result in substantially biased estimates in many contexts including linear and nonlinear regressions. For survival data with measurement error in covariates there has been extensive discussion in the literature with the focus being on the Cox proportional hazards models. However, the impact of measurement error on accelerated failure time (AFT) models has received little attention, though AFT models are very useful in survival data analysis. In this paper, we discuss AFT models with error-prone covariates and study the bias induced by the naive approach of ignoring measurement error in covariates. To adjust for such a bias, we describe a simulation and extrapolation method. This method is appealing because it is simple to implement and it does not require modelling the true but error-prone covariate process that is often not observable. Asymptotic normality for the resulting estimators is established. Simulation studies are carried out to evaluate the performance of the proposed method as well as the impact of ignoring measurement error in covariates. The proposed method is applied to analyse a data set arising from the Busselton Health study (Australian J. Public Health 1994; 18:129-135).

We consider measurement error in covariates in the marginal hazards model for multivariate failure time data. We explore the bias implications of normal additive measurement error without assuming a distribution for the underlying true covariate. To correct measurement-error-induced bias in the regression coefficient of the marginal model, we propose to apply the SIMEX procedure and demonstrate its large and small sample properties for both known and estimated measurement error variance. We illustrate this method using the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial data with total cholesterol as the covariate measured with error and time until angina and time until nonfatal myocardial infarction as the correlated outcomes of interest.

ABSTRACTOften in data arising out of epidemiologic studies, covariates are subject to measurement error. In addition ordinal responses may be misclassified into a category that does not reflect the true state of the respondents. The goal of the present work is to develop an ordered probit model that corrects for the classification errors in ordinal responses and/or measurement error in covariates. Maximum likelihood method of estimation is used. Simulation study reveals the effect of ignoring measurement error and/or classification errors on the estimates of the regression coefficients. The methodology developed is illustrated through a numerical example.

991012735768003412 HKUST Electronic Theses Statistical methods for dealing with measurement error in covariates : EPIC-InterAct study by Cao Zhiqiang thesis 2019 xv, 155 pages : illustrations ; 30 cm In Statistics, most theories are developed to deal with statistical modeling…Read more ›

The incidence of Valley Fever can be predicted using a Poisson regression model, which links the expected incidence count to influential covariates with model coefficients. In real-world practice, the estimated model coefficients are sensitive to the inevitable measurement errors in the covariates, which are usually manifested as classical errors and/or Berkson errors. While conventional methods have separately addressed each type of error, the joint consideration of both, referred to as mixture measurement error in this article, is currently absent from the existing literature, leaving model coefficient estimators with significant biases. This article presents a measurement-error tolerant Poisson regression to mitigate the impacts of the mixture measurement error in covariates of health-care data analysis. An error-structureadapted quasi-likelihood estimation method is proposed to enhance the accuracy of model estimation. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated through a numerical case study built upon a Valley Fever investigation, validating its improved estimation accuracy and robustness.

Severe asthma in the US population and eligibility for mAb therapy

On choice and effect of weight matrix for response sensitivity-based damage identification with measurement and model errors

Missing data are nearly always a problem in research, and missing values represent a serious threat to the validity of inferences drawn from findings. Increasingly, social science researchers are turning to multiple imputation to handle missing data. Multiple imputation, in which missing values are replaced by values repeatedly drawn from conditional probability distributions, is an appropriate method for handling missing data when values are not missing completely at random. However, use of this method requires developing an imputation model from the observed data. This is typically a rigorous and time-consuming process. To encourage wider adoption of multiple imputation in social work research, a simple framework for designing imputation models is presented. The framework and its ability to generate unbiased estimates are demonstrated in a simulation study. KEY WORDS: missing data; multiple imputation; nonresponse ********** Missing data are ubiquitous in social research, and missingness or nonresponse can represent a threat to the validity of inferences because of undue effects on efficiency, power, and parameter bias (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Social work researchers are now addressing missing data in a more rigorous manner. Recently, Saunders et al. (2006) and Choi, Golder, Gillmore, and Morrison (2005) described important data imputation methods and dispelled misunderstandings regarding popular imputation methods, such as mean substitution. Recent advances in analytic methods, such as multiple imputation (MI), are taking hold in social work research. With MI, missing values are replaced with values repeatedly drawn from simulated conditional probability distributions (Schafer, 1997), thus creating multiple versions of the data set. Each version of the data set is analyzed according to the data analysis model, and the multiple results are combined into point estimates (Rubin, 1996). A critical task in MI is to devise an imputation model (Allison, 2002) or missing data model (Graham, Olchowski, & Gilreath, 2007), which involves specifying the measures that are putatively associated with the missing values. Although this process adds additional steps, the specification of an imputation model and the creation of multiple data sets can produce less-biased estimates in the presence of missing data across a wide variety of data analysis techniques (Schafer, 1997). Besides MI, there are many other methods for addressing missing data (Schafer, 1999; Schafer & Graham, 2002). An equally rigorous method known as direct or full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation can produce unbiased estimates and correct standard errors in the presence of missing data. When the number of imputations is sufficiently large, identical missing data models will produce the same estimates under MI and FIML (Graham et al., 2007). Unlike MI, FIML is limited to maximum likelihood analytic techniques and the missing data model must be included in the analysis model. Although we focus on MI, the steps we describe for developing an imputation model are equally appropriate for use in the missing data model for FIML. On the basis of the MI literature, this article describes a framework for developing an imputation model for use with any free or commercial software package that performs MI. BRIEF REVIEW OF MISSING DATA CONCEPTS Generally, both MI and a broad range of missing data issues have received ample attention in the applied literature (Graham et al., 2007). We briefly discuss the three types of distributions that describe the randomness of nonresponse given that this property has consequences for the development of an imputation model. For a discussion of general missing data concepts that are not critical to understanding our discussion of imputation model development, we refer readers to Schafer and Graham (2002). Distribution of Nonresponse The probability distribution of nonresponse--more frequently referred to as the missing data or nonresponse mechanism (Rubin, 1976)--is both an important factor in the decision to impute with MI and a context for the development of an imputation model. …

BackgroundMissing data are a common problem in prospective studies with a long follow-up, and the volume, pattern and reasons for missing data may be relevant when estimating the cost of illness. We aimed to evaluate the effects of different methods for dealing with missing longitudinal cost data and for costing caregiver time on total societal costs in Alzheimer’s disease (AD).MethodsGERAS is an 18-month observational study of costs associated with AD. Total societal costs included patient health and social care costs, and caregiver health and informal care costs. Missing data were classified as missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). Simulation datasets were generated from baseline data with 10–40 % missing total cost data for each missing data mechanism. Datasets were also simulated to reflect the missing cost data pattern at 18 months using MAR and MNAR assumptions. Naïve and multiple imputation (MI) methods were applied to each dataset and results compared with complete GERAS 18-month cost data. Opportunity and replacement cost approaches were used for caregiver time, which was costed with and without supervision included and with time for working caregivers only being costed.ResultsTotal costs were available for 99.4 % of 1497 patients at baseline. For MCAR datasets, naïve methods performed as well as MI methods. For MAR, MI methods performed better than naïve methods. All imputation approaches were poor for MNAR data. For all approaches, percentage bias increased with missing data volume. For datasets reflecting 18-month patterns, a combination of imputation methods provided more accurate cost estimates (e.g. bias: −1 % vs −6 % for single MI method), although different approaches to costing caregiver time had a greater impact on estimated costs (29–43 % increase over base case estimate).ConclusionsMethods used to impute missing cost data in AD will impact on accuracy of cost estimates although varying approaches to costing informal caregiver time has the greatest impact on total costs. Tailoring imputation methods to the reason for missing data will further our understanding of the best analytical approach for studies involving cost outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0188-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Traditional data envelopment analysis (DEA) is used under the premise that inputs and outputs are exact values. If it is not true, the DEA approach is unavailable. However, it is common that some of the entries in the data are missing in practice. As a result, the current paper performs efficiency evaluation with missing data considering the missing-data properties (missing-data patterns and missing-data mechanisms). A multiple imputation (MI) approach is used to estimate the missing values. The MI approach is applied to a forest reorganisation problem for reliability. An example of public secondary schools is given to illustrate the proposed technique. When input or output values for decision making units (DMUs) continuously vary under an interval, the current paper characterises a DMU’s pessimistic and optimistic efficiency functions of an input or output of most interest. A Monte Carlo simulation technique is used to obtain a DMU’s efficiency distribution.

We present three different methods based on the conditional mean imputation when binary explanatory variables are incomplete. Apart from the single imputation and multiple imputation especially the so-called pi imputation is presented as a new procedure. Seven procedures are compared in a simulation experiment when missing data are confined to one independent binary variable: complete case analysis, zero order regression, categorical zero order regression, pi imputation, single imputation, multiple imputation, modified first order regression. After a brief theoretical description of the simulation experiment, MSE-ratio, variance and bias are used to illustrate differences within and between the approaches.

Instrumental variable (IV) analysis has been widely used in economics, epidemiology, and other fields to estimate the causal effects of covariates on outcomes, in the presence of unobserved confounders and/or measurement errors in covariates. However, IV methods for time-to-event outcome with censored data remain underdeveloped. This paper proposes a Bayesian approach for IV analysis with censored time-to-event outcome by using a two-stage linear model. A Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling method is developed for parameter estimation for both normal and non-normal linear models with elliptically contoured error distributions. The performance of our method is examined by simulation studies. Our method largely reduces bias and greatly improves coverage probability of the estimated causal effect, compared with the method that ignores the unobserved confounders and measurement errors. We illustrate our method on the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.

BackgroundMultiple imputation is frequently used to deal with missing data in healthcare research. Although it is known that the outcome should be included in the imputation model when imputing missing covariate values, it is not known whether it should be imputed. Similarly no clear recommendations exist on: the utility of incorporating a secondary outcome, if available, in the imputation model; the level of protection offered when data are missing not-at-random; the implications of the dataset size and missingness levels.MethodsWe used realistic assumptions to generate thousands of datasets across a broad spectrum of contexts: three mechanisms of missingness (completely at random; at random; not at random); varying extents of missingness (20–80% missing data); and different sample sizes (1,000 or 10,000 cases). For each context we quantified the performance of a complete case analysis and seven multiple imputation methods which deleted cases with missing outcome before imputation, after imputation or not at all; included or did not include the outcome in the imputation models; and included or did not include a secondary outcome in the imputation models. Methods were compared on mean absolute error, bias, coverage and power over 1,000 datasets for each scenario.ResultsOverall, there was very little to separate multiple imputation methods which included the outcome in the imputation model. Even when missingness was quite extensive, all multiple imputation approaches performed well. Incorporating a secondary outcome, moderately correlated with the outcome of interest, made very little difference. The dataset size and the extent of missingness affected performance, as expected. Multiple imputation methods protected less well against missingness not at random, but did offer some protection.ConclusionsAs long as the outcome is included in the imputation model, there are very small performance differences between the possible multiple imputation approaches: no outcome imputation, imputation or imputation and deletion. All informative covariates, even with very high levels of missingness, should be included in the multiple imputation model. Multiple imputation offers some protection against a simple missing not at random mechanism.