23.10.2012 Views

View PDF Version - RePub - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

View PDF Version - RePub - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

View PDF Version - RePub - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!