View PDF Version - RePub - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
View PDF Version - RePub - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
View PDF Version - RePub - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Discriminant analysis using a MLMM with a normal mixture 161<br />
Further, we explored the properties of the discrimination procedures based on Pg,i(τ)<br />
from different models (K =1, 2) and different discrimination approaches (marginal,<br />
conditional, random effects) in the following way. For each subject, each model<br />
and discrimination approach, the evolution � �<br />
P1,i(τ) :τ ≤ ti,ni was approximated<br />
from computed values of P1,i(ti,1),...,P1,i(ti,n∗) as piecewise linear (as shown in<br />
i<br />
Figure 3). The values of P1,i(t), for t =0, 1,...,60 months, from patients whose<br />
last visit happened at time t or later were subsequently used to draw receiver operating<br />
curves (ROC) and to compute related areas under the ROC (AUC). Figure 4<br />
clearly shows the superiority of the random effects prediction in this case and also<br />
a visible improvement when a two component normal mixture is used for the random<br />
effects distribution compared to a single component normal distribution. More insight<br />
is given in Figure 5 which shows ROCs for t =0, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36 months and<br />
in Table 3 which provides the sensitivity values for specificity values equal to 0.99,<br />
0.95 and 0.90. They show that with the random effects prediction, it is possible<br />
to predict already at t = 18 months the patient’s status at T = 120 months with<br />
a rather high specificity and sensitivity (e.g. with K = 2, specificity of 0.90 and<br />
sensitivity of 0.733 is obtained at t = 18 months).<br />
Furthermore, we examined how the multivariate mixed model (1) based on R =3<br />
markers improves the prediction of the patient’s status at T = 10 years compared<br />
to separate mixed models for each marker. Hence, we separately fitted the three<br />
mixed models to each of the considered markers. In each model, K = 2 mixture<br />
components were used to model the distribution of the random effects. Figure 6<br />
Figure 4. Dutch PBC Study. Evolution of the area under the ROC curve over time for different types of<br />
prediction methods based on mixed models with K = 1 and K = 2 mixture components. Solid line: K=2,<br />
dashed line: K=1.