Explore the vast range of titles available.

Publication bias is a serious problem in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which can affect the validity and generalization of conclusions. Currently, approaches to dealing with publication bias can be distinguished into two classes: selection models and funnel-plot-based methods. Selection models use weight functions to adjust the overall effect size estimate and are usually employed as sensitivity analyses to assess the potential impact of publication bias. Punnel-plot-based methods include visual examination of a funnel plot, regression and rank tests, and the nonparametric trim and fill method. Although these approaches have been widely used in applications, measures for quantifying publication bias are seldom studied in the literature. Such measures can be used as a characteristic of a meta-analysis; also, they permit comparisons of publication biases between different meta-analyses. Egger's regression intercept may be considered as a candidate measure, but it lacks an intuitive interpretation. This article introduces a new measure, the skewness of the standardized deviates, to quantify publication bias. This measure describes the asymmetry of the collected studies' distribution. In addition, a new test for publication bias is derived based on the skewness. Large sample properties of the new measure are studied, and its performance is illustrated using simulations and three case studies.

Methodological advancements, including propensity score methods, have resulted in improved unbiased estimation of treatment effects from observational data. Traditionally, a \"throw in the kitchen sink\" approach has been used to select covariates for inclusion into the propensity score, but recent work shows including unnecessary covariates can impact both the bias and statistical efficiency of propensity score estimators. In particular, the inclusion of covariates that impact exposure but not the outcome, can inflate standard errors without improving bias, while the inclusion of covariates associated with the outcome but unrelated to exposure can improve precision. We propose the outcome-adaptive lasso for selecting appropriate covariates for inclusion in propensity score models to account for confounding bias and maintaining statistical efficiency. This proposed approach can perform variable selection in the presence of a large number of spurious covariates, that is, covariates unrelated to outcome or exposure. We present theoretical and simulation results indicating that the outcome-adaptive lasso selects the propensity score model that includes all true confounders and predictors of outcome, while excluding other covariates. We illustrate covariate selection using the outcome-adaptive lasso, including comparison to alternative approaches, using simulated data and in a survey of patients using opioid therapy to manage chronic pain.

In diverse fields of empirical research—including many in the biological sciences—attempts are made to decompose the effect of an exposure on an outcome into its effects via a number of different pathways. For example, we may wish to separate the effect of heavy alcohol consumption on systolic blood pressure (SBP) into effects via body mass index (BMI), via gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT), and via other pathways. Much progress has been made, mainly due to contributions from the field of causal inference, in understanding the precise nature of statistical estimands that capture such intuitive effects, the assumptions under which they can be identified, and statistical methods for doing so. These contributions have focused almost entirely on settings with a single mediator, or a set of mediators considered en bloc; in many applications, however, researchers attempt a much more ambitious decomposition into numerous path-specific effects through many mediators. In this article, we give counterfactual definitions of such path-specific estimands in settings with multiple mediators, when earlier mediators may affect later ones, showing that there are many ways in which decomposition can be done. We discuss the strong assumptions under which the effects are identified, suggesting a sensitivity analysis approach when a particular subset of the assumptions cannot be justified. These ideas are illustrated using data on alcohol consumption, SBP, BMI, and GGT from the Izhevsk Family Study. We aim to bridge the gap from \"single mediator theory\" to \"multiple mediator practice,\" highlighting the ambitious nature of this endeavor and giving practical suggestions on how to proceed.

Estimation of relative survival has become the first and the most basic step when reporting cancer survival statistics. Standard estimators are in routine use by all cancer registries. However, it has been recently noted that these estimators do not provide information on cancer mortality that is independent of the national general population mortality. Thus they are not suitable for comparison between countries. Furthermore, the commonly used interpretation of the relative survival curve is vague and misleading. The present article attempts to remedy these basic problems. The population quantities of the traditional estimators are carefully described and their interpretation discussed. We then propose a new estimator of net survival probability that enables the desired comparability between countries. The new estimator requires no modeling and is accompanied with a straightforward variance estimate. The methods are described on real as well as simulated data.

Many statistical methods have recently been developed for identifying subgroups of patients who may benefit from different available treatments. Compared with the traditional outcome-modeling approaches, these methods focus on modeling interactions between the treatments and covariates while by-pass or minimize modeling the main effects of covariates because the subgroup identification only depends on the sign of the interaction. However, these methods are scattered and often narrow in scope. In this article, we propose a general framework, by weighting and A-learning, for subgroup identification in both randomized clinical trials and observational studies. Our framework involves minimum modeling for the relationship between the outcome and covariates pertinent to the subgroup identification. Under the proposed framework, we may also estimate the magnitude of the interaction, which leads to the construction of scoring system measuring the individualized treatment effect. The proposed methods are quite flexible and include many recently proposed estimators as special cases. As a result, some estimators originally proposed for randomized clinical trials can be extended to observational studies, and procedures based on the weighting method can be converted to an A-learning method and vice versa. Our approaches also allow straightforward incorporation of regularization methods for high-dimensional data, as well as possible efficiency augmentation and generalization to multiple treatments. We examine the empirical performance of several procedures belonging to the proposed framework through extensive numerical studies.

A treatment regime is a rule that assigns a treatment, among a set of possible treatments, to a patient as a function of his/her observed characteristics, hence “personalizing” treatment to the patient. The goal is to identify the optimal treatment regime that, if followed by the entire population of patients, would lead to the best outcome on average. Given data from a clinical trial or observational study, for a single treatment decision, the optimal regime can be found by assuming a regression model for the expected outcome conditional on treatment and covariates, where, for a given set of covariates, the optimal treatment is the one that yields the most favorable expected outcome. However, treatment assignment via such a regime is suspect if the regression model is incorrectly specified. Recognizing that, even if misspecified, such a regression model defines a class of regimes, we instead consider finding the optimal regime within such a class by finding the regime that optimizes an estimator of overall population mean outcome. To take into account possible confounding in an observational study and to increase precision, we use a doubly robust augmented inverse probability weighted estimator for this purpose. Simulations and application to data from a breast cancer clinical trial demonstrate the performance of the method.

In this article, we develop new methods for estimating average treatment effects in observational studies, in settings with more than two treatment levels, assuming unconfoundedness given pretreatment variables. We emphasize propensity score subclassification and matching methods which have been among the most popular methods in the binary treatment literature. Whereas the literature has suggested that these particular propensity-based methods do not naturally extend to the multi-level treatment case, we show, using the concept of weak unconfoundedness and the notion of the generalized propensity score, that adjusting for a scalar function of the pretreatment variables removes all biases associated with observed pretreatment variables. We apply the proposed methods to an analysis of the effect of treatments for fibromyalgia. We also carry out a simulation study to assess the finite sample performance of the methods relative to previously proposed methods.

It is difficult to accurately estimate species richness if there are many almost undetectable species in a hyper‐diverse community. Practically, an accurate lower bound for species richness is preferable to an inaccurate point estimator. The traditional nonparametric lower bound developed by Chao (1984, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 11, 265–270) for individual‐based abundance data uses only the information on the rarest species (the numbers of singletons and doubletons) to estimate the number of undetected species in samples. Applying a modified Good–Turing frequency formula, we derive an approximate formula for the first‐order bias of this traditional lower bound. The approximate bias is estimated by using additional information (namely, the numbers of tripletons and quadrupletons). This approximate bias can be corrected, and an improved lower bound is thus obtained. The proposed lower bound is nonparametric in the sense that it is universally valid for any species abundance distribution. A similar type of improved lower bound can be derived for incidence data. We test our proposed lower bounds on simulated data sets generated from various species abundance models. Simulation results show that the proposed lower bounds always reduce bias over the traditional lower bounds and improve accuracy (as measured by mean squared error) when the heterogeneity of species abundances is relatively high. We also apply the proposed new lower bounds to real data for illustration and for comparisons with previously developed estimators.

The increased availability of multi-view data (data on the same samples from multiple sources) has led to strong interest in models based on low-rank matrix factorizations. These models represent each data view via shared and individual components, and have been successfully applied for exploratory dimension reduction, association analysis between the views, and consensus clustering. Despite these advances, there remain challenges in modeling partially-shared components and identifying the number of components of each type (shared/partially-shared/individual). We formulate a novel linked component model that directly incorporates partially-shared structures. We call this model SLIDE for Structural Learning and Integrative DEcomposition of multi-view data. The proposed model-fitting and selection techniques allow for joint identification of the number of components of each type, in contrast to existing sequential approaches. In our empirical studies, SLIDE demonstrates excellent performance in both signal estimation and component selection. We further illustrate the methodology on the breast cancer data from The Cancer Genome Atlas repository.

In longitudinal studies it is often of interest to investigate how a marker that is repeatedly measured in time is associated with a time to an event of interest. This type of research question has given rise to a rapidly developing field of biostatistics research that deals with the joint modeling of longitudinal and time‐to‐event data. In this article, we consider this modeling framework and focus particularly on the assessment of the predictive ability of the longitudinal marker for the time‐to‐event outcome. In particular, we start by presenting how survival probabilities can be estimated for future subjects based on their available longitudinal measurements and a fitted joint model. Following we derive accuracy measures under the joint modeling framework and assess how well the marker is capable of discriminating between subjects who experience the event within a medically meaningful time frame from subjects who do not. We illustrate our proposals on a real data set on human immunodeficiency virus infected patients for which we are interested in predicting the time‐to‐death using their longitudinal CD4 cell count measurements.