scholarly journals Performance assessment using mixed effects models: a case study on coronary patient care

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Grieco ◽  
F. Ieva ◽  
A. M. Paganoni
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Performance Assessment ◽  
Mixed Effects ◽  
Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Coronary Patient

Preserving correlation while modelling diameter distributions

2004 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 221-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Effects ◽  
Seemingly Unrelated Regression ◽  
Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Diameter Distribution ◽  
Distribution Models ◽  
Unrelated Regression ◽  
Simultaneous Prediction ◽  
Components Analysis ◽  
Diameter Distributions

The construction of diameter-distribution models sometimes calls for the simultaneous prediction of population parameters from hierarchical data. Appropriate data for such models have characteristics that should be preserved or accommodated: clustering and contemporaneous correlations. Fitting techniques for such data must allow for these characteristics. Using a case study, I compare two techniques — seemingly-unrelated regression (SUR) and principal components analysis (PCA) — whilst using mixed-effects models. I adapt and apply a metric that focuses on volume prediction, which is a key application for diameter distributions. The results suggest that using mixed-effects models provides useful insights into environmental variation, and that SUR is more convenient and produces a slightly better fit than PCA. Both techniques are acceptable with regard to regression assumptions.

Detecting the violation of variance homogeneity in mixed models

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 2506-2520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xicheng Fang ◽  
Jialiang Li ◽  
Weng Kee Wong ◽  
Bo Fu
Keyword(s):  
Random Effects ◽  
Mixed Models ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Covariance Structure ◽  
Mixed Effects ◽  
Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Simulation Studies ◽  
Homogeneity Assumption ◽  
Variance Homogeneity

Mixed-effects models are increasingly used in many areas of applied science. Despite their popularity, there is virtually no systematic approach for examining the homogeneity of the random-effects covariance structure commonly assumed for such models. We propose two tests for evaluating the homogeneity of the covariance structure assumption across subjects: one is based on the covariance matrices computed from the fitted model and the other is based on the empirical variation computed from the estimated random effects. We used simulation studies to compare performances of the two tests for detecting violations of the homogeneity assumption in the mixed-effects models and showed that they were able to identify abnormal clusters of subjects with dissimilar random-effects covariance structures; in particular, their removal from the fitted model might change the signs and the magnitudes of important predictors in the analysis. In a case study, we applied our proposed tests to a longitudinal cohort study of rheumatoid arthritis patients and compared their abilities to ascertain whether the assumption of covariance homogeneity for subject-specific random effects holds.

scholarly journals Bayes factors for mixed-effects models

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catriona Silvey ◽  
Zoltan Dienes ◽  
Elizabeth Wonnacott
Keyword(s):  
Significance Test ◽  
Mixed Effects ◽  
Bayes Factors ◽  
Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
States Of Affairs ◽  
Simple Method ◽  
Frequentist Statistics ◽  
To Come

In psychology, we often want to know whether or not an effect exists. The traditional way of answering this question is to use frequentist statistics. However, a significance test against a null hypothesis of no effect cannot distinguish between two states of affairs: evidence of absence of an effect, and absence of evidence for or against an effect. Bayes factors can make this distinction; however, uptake of Bayes factors in psychology has so far been low for two reasons. Firstly, they require researchers to specify the range of effect sizes their theory predicts. Researchers are often unsure about how to do this, leading to the use of inappropriate default values which may give misleading results. Secondly, many implementations of Bayes factors have a substantial technical learning curve. We present a case study and simulations demonstrating a simple method for generating a range of plausible effect sizes based on the output from frequentist mixed-effects models. Bayes factors calculated using these estimates provide intuitively reasonable results across a range of real effect sizes. The approach provides a solution to the problem of how to come up with principled estimates of effect size, and produces comparable results to a state-of-the-art method without requiring researchers to learn novel statistical software.

scholarly journals Effect of tofogliflozin on arterial stiffness in patients with type 2 diabetes: prespecified sub-analysis of the prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group comparative UTOPIA trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Naoto Katakami ◽  
◽  
Tomoya Mita ◽  
Hidenori Yoshii ◽  
Toshihiko Shiraiwa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Conventional Treatment ◽  
Mixed Effects ◽  
Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
History Of

Abstract Background Tofogliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, is associated with favorable metabolic effects, including improved glycemic control and serum lipid profile and decreased body weight, visceral adipose tissue, and blood pressure (BP). This study evaluated the effects of tofogliflozin on the brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) without a history of apparent cardiovascular disease. Methods The using tofogliflozin for possible better intervention against atherosclerosis for type 2 diabetes patients (UTOPIA) trial is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter, parallel-group, comparative study. As one of the prespecified secondary outcomes, changes in baPWV over 104 weeks were evaluated in 154 individuals (80 in the tofogliflozin group and 74 in the conventional treatment group) who completed baPWV measurement at baseline. Results In a mixed-effects model, the progression in the right, left, and mean baPWV over 104 weeks was significantly attenuated with tofogliflozin compared to that with conventional treatment (– 109.3 [– 184.3, – 34.3] (mean change [95% CI] cm/s, p = 0.005; – 98.3 [– 172.6, – 24.1] cm/s, p = 0.010; – 104.7 [– 177.0, – 32.4] cm/s, p = 0.005, respectively). Similar findings were obtained even after adjusting the mixed-effects models for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, including body mass index (BMI), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, triglyceride, systolic blood pressure (SBP), hypertension, smoking, and/or administration of drugs, including hypoglycemic agents, antihypertensive agents, statins, and anti-platelets, at baseline. The findings of the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models, which included the treatment group, baseline baPWV, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors, resembled those generated by the mixed-effects models. Conclusions Tofogliflozin significantly inhibited the increased baPWV in patients with T2DM without a history of apparent cardiovascular disease, suggesting that tofogliflozin suppressed the progression of arterial stiffness. Trial Registration UMIN000017607. Registered 18 May 2015. (https://www.umin.ac.jp/icdr/index.html)

The Use of Theory of Linear Mixed-Effects Models to Detect Fraudulent Erasures at an Aggregate Level

2021 ◽  
pp. 001316442199489
Author(s):  
Luyao Peng ◽  
Sandip Sinharay
Keyword(s):  
Type I Error ◽  
Real Data ◽  
Mixed Effects ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Type I ◽  
Aggregate Level ◽  
Linear Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Linear Mixed Effects ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased

Wollack et al. (2015) suggested the erasure detection index (EDI) for detecting fraudulent erasures for individual examinees. Wollack and Eckerly (2017) and Sinharay (2018) extended the index of Wollack et al. (2015) to suggest three EDIs for detecting fraudulent erasures at the aggregate or group level. This article follows up on the research of Wollack and Eckerly (2017) and Sinharay (2018) and suggests a new aggregate-level EDI by incorporating the empirical best linear unbiased predictor from the literature of linear mixed-effects models (e.g., McCulloch et al., 2008). A simulation study shows that the new EDI has larger power than the indices of Wollack and Eckerly (2017) and Sinharay (2018). In addition, the new index has satisfactory Type I error rates. A real data example is also included.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document