13.11.2012 Views

Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis

Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis

Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

9.2 MARGINAL MODELING: THE GEE APPROACH 283<br />

9.2.4 Example: Tera<strong>to</strong>logy Overdispersion<br />

Table 9.4 shows results of a tera<strong>to</strong>logy experiment. Female rats on iron-deficient diets<br />

were assigned <strong>to</strong> four groups. Group 1 received only placebo injections. The other<br />

groups received injections of an iron supplement according <strong>to</strong> various schedules. The<br />

rats were made pregnant and then sacrificed after 3 weeks. For each fetus in each rat’s<br />

litter, the response was whether the fetus was dead.<br />

We treat the fetuses in a given litter as a cluster. Let yi denote the number of dead<br />

fetuses for the Ti fetuses in litter i. Let πit denote the probability of death for fetus t<br />

in litter i. Let zig = 1 if litter i is in group g and 0 otherwise.<br />

First, we ignore the clustering and suppose that yi is a bin(Ti,πit) variate. The<br />

model<br />

logit(πit) = α + β2zi2 + β3zi3 + β4zi4<br />

treats all litters in a group g as having the same probability of death, exp(α + βg)/[1 +<br />

exp(α + βg)], where β1 = 0. Here, βi is a log odds ratio comparing group i with the<br />

placebo group (group number 1). Table 9.5 shows ML estimates and standard errors.<br />

There is strong evidence that the probability of death is substantially lower for each<br />

treatment group than the placebo group.<br />

Because of unmeasured covariates that affect the response, it is natural <strong>to</strong> expect<br />

that the actual probability of death varies from litter <strong>to</strong> litter within a particular treatment<br />

group. In fact, the data show evidence of overdispersion, with goodness-of-fit<br />

statistics X 2 = 154.7 and G 2 = 173.5 (df = 54). For comparison, Table 9.5 also<br />

shows results with the GEE approach <strong>to</strong> fitting the logit model, assuming an<br />

exchangeable working correlation structure for observations within a litter. The<br />

estimated within-litter correlation between the binary responses is 0.19.<br />

Table 9.4. Response Counts of (Litter Size, Number Dead) for 58 Litters of<br />

Rats in a Low-Iron Tera<strong>to</strong>logy Study<br />

Group 1: untreated (low iron)<br />

(10, 1) (11, 4) (12, 9) (4, 4) (10, 10) (11, 9) (9, 9) (11, 11) (10, 10) (10, 7) (12, 12)<br />

(10, 9) (8, 8) (11, 9) (6, 4) (9, 7) (14, 14) (12, 7) (11, 9) (13, 8) (14, 5) (10, 10)<br />

(12, 10) (13, 8) (10, 10) (14, 3) (13, 13) (4, 3) (8, 8) (13, 5) (12, 12)<br />

Group 2: injections days 7 and 10<br />

(10, 1) (3, 1) (13, 1) (12, 0) (14, 4) (9, 2) (13, 2) (16, 1) (11, 0) (4, 0) (1, 0) (12, 0)<br />

Group 3: injections days 0 and 7<br />

(8, 0) (11, 1) (14, 0) (14, 1) (11, 0)<br />

Group 4: injections weekly<br />

(3, 0) (13, 0) (9, 2) (17, 2) (15, 0) (2, 0) (14, 1) (8, 0) (6, 0) (17, 0)<br />

Source: D. F. Moore and A. Tsiatis, Biometrics, 47: 383–401, 1991.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!