From: <khosoda_at_med.kobe-u.ac.jp>

Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:53:40 +0900

[1,] 3.8

https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. Received on Sat 23 Apr 2011 - 20:39:39 GMT

Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:53:40 +0900

According to the advice, I tried rms package. Just to make sure, I have data of 104 patients (x6.df), which consists of 5 explanatory variables and one binary outcome (poor/good) (previous model 2 strategy). The outcome consists of 25 poor results and 79 good results. Therefore, My events per variable (EPV) is only 5 (much less than the rule of thumb of 10).

> x6.lrm <- lrm(outcome ~ stenosis+x1+x2+procedure+ClinicalScore,

data=x6.df, x=T, y=T)

Obs 104 LR chi2 29.24 R2 0.367 C 0.816 negative 79 d.f. 5 g 1.633 Dxy 0.632 positive 25 Pr(> chi2) <0.0001 gr 5.118 gamma 0.632 max |deriv| 1e-08 gp 0.237 tau-a 0.233 Brier 0.127 Coef S.E. Wald Z Pr(>|Z|) Intercept -5.5328 2.6287 -2.10 0.0353 stenosis -0.0150 0.0284 -0.53 0.5979 x1 3.0425 0.9100 3.34 0.0008 x2 -0.7534 0.4519 -1.67 0.0955 procedure 1.2085 0.5717 2.11 0.0345ClinicalScore 0.3762 0.2287 1.65 0.0999

It seems not too bad. Next, validation by bootstrap ...

> validate(x6.lrm, B=200, bw=F)

index.orig training test optimism index.corrected n Dxy 0.6324 0.6960 0.5870 0.1091 0.5233 200 R2 0.3668 0.4370 0.3154 0.1216 0.2453 200 Intercept 0.0000 0.0000 -0.2007 0.2007 -0.2007 200 Slope 1.0000 1.0000 0.7565 0.2435 0.7565 200 Emax 0.0000 0.0000 0.0999 0.0999 0.0999 200 D 0.2716 0.3368 0.2275 0.1093 0.1623 200 U -0.0192 -0.0192 0.0369 -0.0561 0.0369 200 Q 0.2908 0.3560 0.1906 0.1654 0.1254 200 B 0.1272 0.1155 0.1384 -0.0229 0.1501 200 g 1.6328 2.0740 1.4647 0.6093 1.0235 200 gp 0.2367 0.2529 0.2189 0.0341 0.2026 200

The apparent Dxy is 0.63, and bias-corrected Dxy is 0.52. The maximum absolute error is estimated to be 0.099. The changes in slope and intercept are also more substantial. In all, there is evidence that I am somewhat overfitting the data, right?.

Furthermore, using step-down variable selection ...

> validate(x6.lrm, B=200, bw=T)

Backwards Step-down - Original Model

Deleted Chi-Sq d.f. P Residual d.f. P AIC stenosis 0.28 1 0.5979 0.28 1 0.5979 -1.72 ClinicalScore 2.60 1 0.1068 2.88 2 0.2370 -1.12 x2 2.86 1 0.0910 5.74 3 0.1252 -0.26

Approximate Estimates after Deleting Factors

Coef S.E. Wald Z P

Intercept -5.865 1.4136 -4.149 3.336e-05 x1 2.915 0.8685 3.357 7.889e-04 procedure 1.072 0.5590 1.918 5.508e-02

Factors in Final Model

[1] x1 procedure index.orig training test optimism index.corrected n Dxy 0.5661 0.6755 0.5559 0.1196 0.4464 200 R2 0.2876 0.4085 0.2784 0.1301 0.1575 200 Intercept 0.0000 0.0000 -0.2459 0.2459 -0.2459 200 Slope 1.0000 1.0000 0.7300 0.2700 0.7300 200 Emax 0.0000 0.0000 0.1173 0.1173 0.1173 200 D 0.2038 0.3130 0.1970 0.1160 0.0877 200 U -0.0192 -0.0192 0.0382 -0.0574 0.0382 200 Q 0.2230 0.3323 0.1589 0.1734 0.0496 200 B 0.1441 0.1192 0.1452 -0.0261 0.1702 200 g 1.2628 1.9524 1.3222 0.6302 0.6326 199 gp 0.2041 0.2430 0.2043 0.0387 0.1654 199

If I select only two variables (x1 and procedure), bias-corrected Dxy goes down to 0.45.

[Question 1]

I have EPV problem. Even so, should I keep the full model (5-variable
model)? or can I use the 2-variable (x1 and procedure) model which the
validate() with step-down provides?

[Question 2]

If I use 2-variable model, should I do

x2.lrm <- lrm(postopDWI_HI ~ T1+procedure2, data=x6.df, x=T, y=T)?
or keep the value showed above by validate function?

Next, shrinkage ...

> pentrace(x6.lrm, seq(0, 5.0, by=0.05))

Best penalty:

penalty df

3.05 4.015378

The best penalty is 3.05. So, I update it with this penalty to obtain the corresponding penalized model:

> x6.lrm.pen <- update(x6.lrm, penalty=3.05, x=T, y=T)

> x6.lrm.pen

.....

Penalty factors

simple nonlinear interaction nonlinear.interaction

3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 Final penalty on -2 log L [,1]

[1,] 3.8

Obs 104 LR chi2 28.18 R2 0.313 C 0.818 negative 79 d.f. 4.015 g 1.264 Dxy 0.635 positive 25 Pr(> chi2) <0.0001 gr 3.538 gamma 0.637 max |deriv| 3e-05 gp 0.201 tau-a 0.234 Brier 0.129 Coef S.E. Wald Z Pr(>|Z|) Penalty Scale Intercept -4.7246 2.2429 -2.11 0.0352 0.0000 stenosis -0.0105 0.0240 -0.44 0.6621 17.8021 x1 2.3605 0.7254 3.25 0.0011 0.6054 x2 -0.5385 0.3653 -1.47 0.1404 1.2851 procedure 0.9247 0.4844 1.91 0.0563 0.8576ClinicalScore 0.3046 0.1874 1.63 0.1041 2.4779

Arrange the coefficients of the two models side by side, and also list the difference between the two:

> cbind(coef(x6.lrm), coef(x6.lrm.pen), abs(coef(x6.lrm)-coef(x6.lrm.pen)))

[,1] [,2] [,3] Intercept -5.53281808 -4.72464766 0.808170417 stenosis -0.01496757 -0.01050797 0.004459599 x1 3.04248257 2.36051833 0.681964238 x2 -0.75335619 -0.53854750 0.214808685 procedure 1.20847252 0.92474708 0.283725441ClinicalScore 0.37623189 0.30457557 0.071656322

[Question 3]

Is this penalized model the one I should present for my colleagues?
I still have EPV problem. Or is EPV problem O.K. if I use penalization?

I am still wondering about what I can do to avoid EPV problem. Collecting new data would be a long-time and huge work...

(11/04/22 1:46), khosoda_at_med.kobe-u.ac.jp wrote:

> Thank you for your comment. > I forgot to mention that varclus and pvclust showed similar results for > my data. > > BTW, I did not realize rms is a replacement for the Design package. > I appreciate your suggestion. > -- > KH > > (11/04/21 8:00), Frank Harrell wrote: >> I think it's OK. You can also use the Hmisc package's varclus function. >> Frank >> >> >> 細田弘吉 wrote: >>> >>> Dear Prof. Harrel, >>> >>> Thank you very much for your quick advice. >>> I will try rms package. >>> >>> Regarding model reduction, is my model 2 method (clustering and recoding >>> that are blinded to the outcome) permissible? >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> -- >>> KH >>> >>> (11/04/20 22:01), Frank Harrell wrote: >>>> Deleting variables is a bad idea unless you make that a formal part of >>>> the >>>> BMA so that the attempt to delete variables is penalized for. >>>> Instead of >>>> BMA I recommend simple penalized maximum likelihood estimation (see the >>>> lrm >>>> function in the rms package) or pre-modeling data reduction that is >>>> blinded >>>> to the outcome variable. >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> 細田弘吉 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi everybody, >>>>> I apologize for long mail in advance. >>>>> >>>>> I have data of 104 patients, which consists of 15 explanatory >>>>> variables >>>>> and one binary outcome (poor/good). The outcome consists of 25 poor >>>>> results and 79 good results. I tried to analyze the data with logistic >>>>> regression. However, the 15 variables and 25 events means events per >>>>> variable (EPV) is much less than 10 (rule of thumb). Therefore, I >>>>> used R >>>>> package, "BMA" to perform logistic regression with BMA to avoid this >>>>> problem. >>>>> >>>>> model 1 (full model): >>>>> x1, x2, x3, x4 are continuous variables and others are binary data. >>>>> >>>>>> x16.bic.glm<- bic.glm(outcome ~ ., data=x16.df, >>>>> glm.family="binomial", OR20, strict=FALSE) >>>>>> summary(x16.bic.glm) >>>>> (The output below has been cut off at the right edge to save space) >>>>> >>>>> 62 models were selected >>>>> Best 5 models (cumulative posterior probability = 0.3606 ): >>>>> >>>>> p!=0 EV SD model 1 model2 >>>>> Intercept 100 -5.1348545 1.652424 -4.4688 -5.15 >>>>> -5.1536 >>>>> age 3.3 0.0001634 0.007258 . >>>>> sex 4.0 >>>>> .M -0.0243145 0.220314 . >>>>> side 10.8 >>>>> .R 0.0811227 0.301233 . >>>>> procedure 46.9 -0.5356894 0.685148 . -1.163 >>>>> symptom 3.8 -0.0099438 0.129690 . . >>>>> stenosis 3.4 -0.0003343 0.005254 . >>>>> x1 3.7 -0.0061451 0.144084 . >>>>> x2 100.0 3.1707661 0.892034 3.2221 3.11 >>>>> x3 51.3 -0.4577885 0.551466 -0.9154 . >>>>> HT 4.6 >>>>> .positive 0.0199299 0.161769 . . >>>>> DM 3.3 >>>>> .positive -0.0019986 0.105910 . . >>>>> IHD 3.5 >>>>> .positive 0.0077626 0.122593 . . >>>>> smoking 9.1 >>>>> .positive 0.0611779 0.258402 . . >>>>> hyperlipidemia 16.0 >>>>> .positive 0.1784293 0.512058 . . >>>>> x4 8.2 0.0607398 0.267501 . . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> nVar 2 2 >>>>> 1 3 3 >>>>> BIC -376.9082 >>>>> -376.5588 -376.3094 -375.8468 -374.5582 >>>>> post prob 0.104 >>>>> 0.087 0.077 0.061 0.032 >>>>> >>>>> [Question 1] >>>>> Is it O.K to calculate odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval from >>>>> "EV" (posterior distribution mean) and“SD”(posterior distribution >>>>> standard deviation)? >>>>> For example, 95%CI of EV of x2 can be calculated as; >>>>>> exp(3.1707661) >>>>> [1] 23.82573 -----> odds ratio >>>>>> exp(3.1707661+1.96*0.892034) >>>>> [1] 136.8866 >>>>>> exp(3.1707661-1.96*0.892034) >>>>> [1] 4.146976 >>>>> ------------------> 95%CI (4.1 to 136.9) >>>>> Is this O.K.? >>>>> >>>>> [Question 2] >>>>> Is it permissible to delete variables with small value of "p!=0" and >>>>> "EV", such as age (3.3% and 0.0001634) to reduce the number of >>>>> explanatory variables and reconstruct new model without those >>>>> variables >>>>> for new session of BMA? >>>>> >>>>> model 2 (reduced model): >>>>> I used R package, "pvclust", to reduce the model. The result suggested >>>>> x1, x2 and x4 belonged to the same cluster, so I picked up only x2. >>>>> Based on the subject knowledge, I made a simple unweighted sum, by >>>>> counting the number of clinical features. For 9 features (sex, side, >>>>> HT2, hyperlipidemia, DM, IHD, smoking, symptom, age), the sum ranges >>>>> from 0 to 9. This score was defined as ClinicalScore. Consequently, I >>>>> made up new data set (x6.df), which consists of 5 variables (stenosis, >>>>> x2, x3, procedure, and ClinicalScore) and one binary outcome >>>>> (poor/good). Then, for alternative BMA session... >>>>> >>>>>> BMAx6.glm<- bic.glm(postopDWI_HI ~ ., data=x6.df, >>>>> glm.family="binomial", OR=20, strict=FALSE) >>>>>> summary(BMAx6.glm) >>>>> (The output below has been cut off at the right edge to save space) >>>>> Call: >>>>> bic.glm.formula(f = postopDWI_HI ~ ., data = x6.df, glm.family = >>>>> "binomial", strict = FALSE, OR = 20) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 13 models were selected >>>>> Best 5 models (cumulative posterior probability = 0.7626 ): >>>>> >>>>> p!=0 EV SD model 1 model 2 >>>>> Intercept 100 -5.6918362 1.81220 -4.4688 -6.3166 >>>>> stenosis 8.1 -0.0008417 0.00815 . . >>>>> x2 100.0 3.0606165 0.87765 3.2221 3.1154 >>>>> x3 46.5 -0.3998864 0.52688 -0.9154 . >>>>> procedure 49.3 0.5747013 0.70164 . 1.1631 >>>>> ClinicalScore 27.1 0.0966633 0.19645 . . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> nVar 2 2 1 >>>>> 3 3 >>>>> BIC -376.9082 -376.5588 >>>>> -376.3094 -375.8468 -375.5025 >>>>> post prob 0.208 0.175 >>>>> 0.154 0.122 0.103 >>>>> >>>>> [Question 3] >>>>> Am I doing it correctly or not? >>>>> I mean this kind of model reduction is permissible for BMA? >>>>> >>>>> [Question 4] >>>>> I still have 5 variables, which violates the rule of thumb, "EPV> 10". >>>>> Is it permissible to delete "stenosis" variable because of small value >>>>> of "EV"? Or is it O.K. because this is BMA? >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for long post. >>>>> >>>>> I appreciate your help very much in advance. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> KH >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________________________ >>>>> R-help_at_r-project.org mailing list >>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >>>>> PLEASE do read the posting guide >>>>> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >>>>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> Frank Harrell >>>> Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/BMA-logistic-regression-odds-ratio-model-reduction-etc-tp3462416p3462919.html >>>> >>>> Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> ______________________________________________R-help_at_r-project.org mailing list

https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. Received on Sat 23 Apr 2011 - 20:39:39 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by
the discipline of
statistics at the
University of Newcastle,
Australia.

Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Mon 25 Apr 2011 - 16:10:33 GMT.

*
Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help.
Please read the posting
guide before posting to the list.
*