4.6 Article

Modeling of Bounded Outcome Scores with Data on the Boundaries: Application to Disability Assessment for Dementia Scores in Alzheimer's Disease

Journal

AAPS JOURNAL
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 1271-1281

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1208/s12248-014-9655-y

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; beta regression; boundary data; bounded outcome scores; disability assessment for dementia

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [11201452, 11271346]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mixed-effects beta regression (BR), boundary-inflated beta regression (ZOI), and coarsening model (CO) were investigated for analyzing bounded outcome scores with data at the boundaries in the context of Alzheimer's disease. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to simulate disability assessment for dementia (DAD) scores using these three models, and each set of simulated data were analyzed by the original simulation model. One thousand trials were simulated, and each trial contained 250 subjects. For each subject, DAD scores were simulated at baseline, 13, 26, 39, 52, 65, and 78 weeks. The simulation-reestimation exercise showed that all the three models could reasonably recover their true parameter values. The bias of the parameter estimates of the ZOI model was generally less than 1%, while the bias of the CO model was mainly within 5%. The bias of the BR model was slightly higher, i.e., less than or in the order of 20%. In the application to real-world DAD data from clinical studies, examination of prediction error and visual predictive check (VPC) plots suggested that both BR and ZOI models had similar predictive performance and described the longitudinal progression of DAD slightly better than the CO model. In conclusion, the investigated three modeling approaches may be sensible choices for bounded outcome scores with data on the edges. Prediction error and VPC plots can be used to identify the model with best predictive performance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available