Literature DB >> 16955543

A comparative investigation of methods for logistic regression with separated or nearly separated data.

Georg Heinze1.   

Abstract

In logistic regression analysis of small or sparse data sets, results obtained by classical maximum likelihood methods cannot be generally trusted. In such analyses it may even happen that the likelihood meets the convergence criteria while at least one parameter estimate diverges to +/-infinity. This situation has been termed 'separation', and it typically occurs whenever no events are observed in one of the two groups defined by a dichotomous covariate. More generally, separation is caused by a linear combination of continuous or dichotomous covariates that perfectly separates events from non-events. Separation implies infinite or zero maximum likelihood estimates of odds ratios, which are usually considered unrealistic. I provide some examples of separation and near-separation in clinical data sets and discuss some options to analyse such data, including exact logistic regression analysis and a penalized likelihood approach. Both methods supply finite point estimates in case of separation. Profile penalized likelihood confidence intervals for parameters show excellent behaviour in terms of coverage probability and provide higher power than exact confidence intervals. General advantages of the penalized likelihood approach are discussed. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16955543     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2687

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  72 in total

1.  Hosts of the Plio-Pleistocene past reflect modern-day coral vulnerability.

Authors:  Robert van Woesik; Erik C Franklin; Jennifer O'Leary; Tim R McClanahan; James S Klaus; Ann F Budd
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Associations of cigarette smoking with rheumatoid arthritis in African Americans.

Authors:  Ted R Mikuls; Harlan Sayles; Fang Yu; Tricia Levan; Karen A Gould; Geoffrey M Thiele; Doyt L Conn; Beth L Jonas; Leigh F Callahan; Edwin Smith; Richard Brasington; Larry W Moreland; Richard J Reynolds; S Louis Bridges
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2010-12

3.  Penalised logistic regression and dynamic prediction for discrete-time recurrent event data.

Authors:  Entisar Elgmati; Rosemeire L Fiaccone; R Henderson; John N S Matthews
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2015-01-28       Impact factor: 1.588

4.  Detecting Differential Item Functioning Using the Logistic Regression Procedure in Small Samples.

Authors:  Sunbok Lee
Journal:  Appl Psychol Meas       Date:  2016-09-24

5.  Interaction Landscape of Inherited Polymorphisms with Somatic Events in Cancer.

Authors:  Hannah Carter; Rachel Marty; Matan Hofree; Andrew M Gross; James Jensen; Kathleen M Fisch; Xingyu Wu; Christopher DeBoever; Eric L Van Nostrand; Yan Song; Emily Wheeler; Jason F Kreisberg; Scott M Lippman; Gene W Yeo; J Silvio Gutkind; Trey Ideker
Journal:  Cancer Discov       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 39.397

6.  Effect of advanced age and vital signs on admission from an ED observation unit.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Caterino; Emily M Hoover; Mark G Moseley
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2012-03-03       Impact factor: 2.469

7.  The role of cEEG as a predictor of patient outcome and survival in patients with intraparenchymal hemorrhages.

Authors:  Mallika Purandare; Alexa N Ehlert; Henri Vaitkevicius; Barbara A Dworetzky; Jong Woo Lee
Journal:  Seizure       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 3.184

8.  High-throughput sequencing of the synaptome in major depressive disorder.

Authors:  M Pirooznia; T Wang; D Avramopoulos; J B Potash; P P Zandi; F S Goes
Journal:  Mol Psychiatry       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 15.992

9.  MODELING MICROBIAL ABUNDANCES AND DYSBIOSIS WITH BETA-BINOMIAL REGRESSION.

Authors:  Bryan D Martin; Daniela Witten; Amy D Willis
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 2.083

10.  A peripheral blood diagnostic test for acute rejection in renal transplantation.

Authors:  L Li; P Khatri; T K Sigdel; T Tran; L Ying; M J Vitalone; A Chen; S Hsieh; H Dai; M Zhang; M Naesens; V Zarkhin; P Sansanwal; R Chen; M Mindrinos; W Xiao; M Benfield; R B Ettenger; V Dharnidharka; R Mathias; A Portale; R McDonald; W Harmon; D Kershaw; V M Vehaskari; E Kamil; H J Baluarte; B Warady; R Davis; A J Butte; O Salvatierra; M M Sarwal
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 8.086

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.