Literature DB >> 15737080

Multiple imputation for model checking: completed-data plots with missing and latent data.

Andrew Gelman1, Iven Van Mechelen, Geert Verbeke, Daniel F Heitjan, Michel Meulders.   

Abstract

In problems with missing or latent data, a standard approach is to first impute the unobserved data, then perform all statistical analyses on the completed dataset--corresponding to the observed data and imputed unobserved data--using standard procedures for complete-data inference. Here, we extend this approach to model checking by demonstrating the advantages of the use of completed-data model diagnostics on imputed completed datasets. The approach is set in the theoretical framework of Bayesian posterior predictive checks (but, as with missing-data imputation, our methods of missing-data model checking can also be interpreted as "predictive inference" in a non-Bayesian context). We consider the graphical diagnostics within this framework. Advantages of the completed-data approach include: (1) One can often check model fit in terms of quantities that are of key substantive interest in a natural way, which is not always possible using observed data alone. (2) In problems with missing data, checks may be devised that do not require to model the missingness or inclusion mechanism; the latter is useful for the analysis of ignorable but unknown data collection mechanisms, such as are often assumed in the analysis of sample surveys and observational studies. (3) In many problems with latent data, it is possible to check qualitative features of the model (for example, independence of two variables) that can be naturally formalized with the help of the latent data. We illustrate with several applied examples.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15737080     DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2005.031010.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  22 in total

1.  Impact of a brief intervention on reducing alcohol use and increasing alcohol treatment services utilization among alcohol- and drug-using adult emergency department patients.

Authors:  Roland C Merchant; Justin Romanoff; Zihao Zhang; Tao Liu; Janette R Baird
Journal:  Alcohol       Date:  2017-09-23       Impact factor: 2.405

2.  Model-based imputation of latent cigarette counts using data from a calibration study.

Authors:  Sandra D Griffith; Saul Shiffman; Yimei Li; Daniel F Heitjan
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 4.035

3.  Combining patient-level and summary-level data for Alzheimer's disease modeling and simulation: a β regression meta-analysis.

Authors:  James A Rogers; Daniel Polhamus; William R Gillespie; Kaori Ito; Klaus Romero; Ruolun Qiu; Diane Stephenson; Marc R Gastonguay; Brian Corrigan
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 2.745

4.  Impact of non-normal random effects on inference by multiple imputation: A simulation assessment.

Authors:  Recai M Yucel; Hakan Demirtas
Journal:  Comput Stat Data Anal       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 1.681

5.  Diagnosing imputation models by applying target analyses to posterior replicates of completed data.

Authors:  Yulei He; Alan M Zaslavsky
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-12-04       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Bayesian model selection for incomplete data using the posterior predictive distribution.

Authors:  Michael J Daniels; Arkendu S Chatterjee; Chenguang Wang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Informing sequential clinical decision-making through reinforcement learning: an empirical study.

Authors:  Susan M Shortreed; Eric Laber; Daniel J Lizotte; T Scott Stroup; Joelle Pineau; Susan A Murphy
Journal:  Mach Learn       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 2.940

8.  Truth and Memory: Linking Instantaneous and Retrospective Self-Reported Cigarette Consumption.

Authors:  Hao Wang; Saul Shiffman; Sandra D Griffith; Daniel F Heitjan
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.083

9.  Multiple imputation in a large-scale complex survey: a practical guide.

Authors:  Y He; A M Zaslavsky; M B Landrum; D P Harrington; P Catalano
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2009-08-04       Impact factor: 3.021

10.  Extensions to the visual predictive check to facilitate model performance evaluation.

Authors:  Teun M Post; Jan I Freijer; Bart A Ploeger; Meindert Danhof
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2008-01-16       Impact factor: 2.745

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.