Maha Alsefri1,2, Maria Sudell3, Marta García-Fiñana3, Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona3. 1. Department of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, L69 3GL, Liverpool, UK. m.alsefri@liverpool.ac.uk. 2. Department of Statistics, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. m.alsefri@liverpool.ac.uk. 3. Department of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, L69 3GL, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In clinical research, there is an increasing interest in joint modelling of longitudinal and time-to-event data, since it reduces bias in parameter estimation and increases the efficiency of statistical inference. Inference and prediction from frequentist approaches of joint models have been extensively reviewed, and due to the recent popularity of data-driven Bayesian approaches, a review on current Bayesian estimation of joint model is useful to draw recommendations for future researches. METHODS: We have undertaken a comprehensive review on Bayesian univariate and multivariate joint models. We focused on type of outcomes, model assumptions, association structure, estimation algorithm, dynamic prediction and software implementation. RESULTS: A total of 89 articles have been identified, consisting of 75 methodological and 14 applied articles. The most common approach to model the longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes jointly included linear mixed effect models with proportional hazards. A random effect association structure was generally used for linking the two sub-models. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms were commonly used (93% articles) to estimate the model parameters. Only six articles were primarily focused on dynamic predictions for longitudinal or event-time outcomes. CONCLUSION: Methodologies for a wide variety of data types have been proposed; however the research is limited if the association between the two outcomes changes over time, and there is also lack of methods to determine the association structure in the absence of clinical background knowledge. Joint modelling has been proved to be beneficial in producing more accurate dynamic prediction; however, there is a lack of sufficient tools to validate the prediction.
BACKGROUND: In clinical research, there is an increasing interest in joint modelling of longitudinal and time-to-event data, since it reduces bias in parameter estimation and increases the efficiency of statistical inference. Inference and prediction from frequentist approaches of joint models have been extensively reviewed, and due to the recent popularity of data-driven Bayesian approaches, a review on current Bayesian estimation of joint model is useful to draw recommendations for future researches. METHODS: We have undertaken a comprehensive review on Bayesian univariate and multivariate joint models. We focused on type of outcomes, model assumptions, association structure, estimation algorithm, dynamic prediction and software implementation. RESULTS: A total of 89 articles have been identified, consisting of 75 methodological and 14 applied articles. The most common approach to model the longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes jointly included linear mixed effect models with proportional hazards. A random effect association structure was generally used for linking the two sub-models. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms were commonly used (93% articles) to estimate the model parameters. Only six articles were primarily focused on dynamic predictions for longitudinal or event-time outcomes. CONCLUSION: Methodologies for a wide variety of data types have been proposed; however the research is limited if the association between the two outcomes changes over time, and there is also lack of methods to determine the association structure in the absence of clinical background knowledge. Joint modelling has been proved to be beneficial in producing more accurate dynamic prediction; however, there is a lack of sufficient tools to validate the prediction.
Authors: Eleni-Rosalina Andrinopoulou; Paul H C Eilers; Johanna J M Takkenberg; Dimitris Rizopoulos Journal: Biometrics Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Rose Sisk; Lijing Lin; Matthew Sperrin; Jessica K Barrett; Brian Tom; Karla Diaz-Ordaz; Niels Peek; Glen P Martin Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 4.497