Cargando…
A comparison of group prediction approaches in longitudinal discriminant analysis
Longitudinal discriminant analysis (LoDA) can be used to classify patients into prognostic groups based on their clinical history, which often involves longitudinal measurements of various clinically relevant markers. Patients' longitudinal data is first modelled using multivariate generalised...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5873537/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28833412 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201700013 |
_version_ | 1783310048618872832 |
---|---|
author | Hughes, David M. El Saeiti, Riham García‐Fiñana, Marta |
author_facet | Hughes, David M. El Saeiti, Riham García‐Fiñana, Marta |
author_sort | Hughes, David M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Longitudinal discriminant analysis (LoDA) can be used to classify patients into prognostic groups based on their clinical history, which often involves longitudinal measurements of various clinically relevant markers. Patients' longitudinal data is first modelled using multivariate generalised linear mixed models, allowing markers of different types (e.g. continuous, binary, counts) to be modelled simultaneously. We describe three approaches to calculating a patient's posterior group membership probabilities which have been outlined in previous studies, based on the marginal distribution of the longitudinal markers, conditional distribution and distribution of the random effects. Here we compare the three approaches, first using data from the Mayo Primary Biliary Cirrhosis study and then by way of simulation study to explore in which situations each of the three approaches is expected to give the best prediction. We demonstrate situations in which the marginal or random‐effects approach perform well, but find that the conditional approach offers little extra information to the random‐effects and marginal approaches. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5873537 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58735372018-03-31 A comparison of group prediction approaches in longitudinal discriminant analysis Hughes, David M. El Saeiti, Riham García‐Fiñana, Marta Biom J Special Issue: ISCB 2016 Longitudinal discriminant analysis (LoDA) can be used to classify patients into prognostic groups based on their clinical history, which often involves longitudinal measurements of various clinically relevant markers. Patients' longitudinal data is first modelled using multivariate generalised linear mixed models, allowing markers of different types (e.g. continuous, binary, counts) to be modelled simultaneously. We describe three approaches to calculating a patient's posterior group membership probabilities which have been outlined in previous studies, based on the marginal distribution of the longitudinal markers, conditional distribution and distribution of the random effects. Here we compare the three approaches, first using data from the Mayo Primary Biliary Cirrhosis study and then by way of simulation study to explore in which situations each of the three approaches is expected to give the best prediction. We demonstrate situations in which the marginal or random‐effects approach perform well, but find that the conditional approach offers little extra information to the random‐effects and marginal approaches. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-08-21 2018-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5873537/ /pubmed/28833412 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201700013 Text en © 2017 The Authors Biometrical Journal Published by Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Special Issue: ISCB 2016 Hughes, David M. El Saeiti, Riham García‐Fiñana, Marta A comparison of group prediction approaches in longitudinal discriminant analysis |
title | A comparison of group prediction approaches in longitudinal discriminant analysis |
title_full | A comparison of group prediction approaches in longitudinal discriminant analysis |
title_fullStr | A comparison of group prediction approaches in longitudinal discriminant analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of group prediction approaches in longitudinal discriminant analysis |
title_short | A comparison of group prediction approaches in longitudinal discriminant analysis |
title_sort | comparison of group prediction approaches in longitudinal discriminant analysis |
topic | Special Issue: ISCB 2016 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5873537/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28833412 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201700013 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hughesdavidm acomparisonofgrouppredictionapproachesinlongitudinaldiscriminantanalysis AT elsaeitiriham acomparisonofgrouppredictionapproachesinlongitudinaldiscriminantanalysis AT garciafinanamarta acomparisonofgrouppredictionapproachesinlongitudinaldiscriminantanalysis AT hughesdavidm comparisonofgrouppredictionapproachesinlongitudinaldiscriminantanalysis AT elsaeitiriham comparisonofgrouppredictionapproachesinlongitudinaldiscriminantanalysis AT garciafinanamarta comparisonofgrouppredictionapproachesinlongitudinaldiscriminantanalysis |