Prediction intervals for all of M future observations based on linear random effects models

被引:3
作者
Menssen, Max [1 ]
Schaarschmidt, Frank [1 ]
机构
[1] Leibniz Univ Hannover, Dept Biostat, Hannover, Lower Saxony, Germany
关键词
anti-drug antibody; assay qualification; bootstrap calibration; historical control data; Satterthwaite approximation; CONFORMANCE PROPORTIONS; VARIANCE-COMPONENTS; POINTS;
D O I
10.1111/stan.12260
中图分类号
O21 [概率论与数理统计]; C8 [统计学];
学科分类号
020208 ; 070103 ; 0714 ;
摘要
In many pharmaceutical and biomedical applications such as assay validation, assessment of historical control data, or the detection of anti-drug antibodies, the calculation and interpretation of prediction intervals (PI) is of interest. The present study provides two novel methods for the calculation of prediction intervals based on linear random effects models and restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. Unlike other REML-based PI found in the literature, both intervals reflect the uncertainty related with the estimation of the prediction variance. The first PI is based on Satterthwaite approximation. For the other PI, a bootstrap calibration approach that we will call quantile-calibration was used. Due to the calibration process this PI can be easily computed for more than one future observation and based on balanced and unbalanced data as well. In order to compare the coverage probabilities of the proposed PI with those of four intervals found in the literature, Monte Carlo simulations were run for two relatively complex random effects models and a broad range of parameter settings. The quantile-calibrated PI was implemented in the statistical software R and is available in the predint package.
引用
收藏
页码:283 / 308
页数:26
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]   Generalized prediction intervals for treatment effects in random-effects models [J].
Al-Sarraj, Razaw ;
von Bromssen, Claudia ;
Forkman, Johannes .
BIOMETRICAL JOURNAL, 2019, 61 (05) :1242-1257
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1991, Statistical Intervals
[3]   Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 [J].
Bates, Douglas ;
Maechler, Martin ;
Bolker, Benjamin M. ;
Walker, Steven C. .
JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL SOFTWARE, 2015, 67 (01) :1-48
[4]   RESTRICTED MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD (REML) ESTIMATION OF VARIANCE COMPONENTS IN MIXED MODEL [J].
CORBEIL, RR ;
SEARLE, SR .
TECHNOMETRICS, 1976, 18 (01) :31-38
[5]   Points to Consider on the Statistical Analysis of Rodent Cancer Bioassay Data When Incorporating Historical Control Data [J].
Elmore, Susan A. ;
Peddada, Shyamal D. .
TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY, 2009, 37 (05) :672-676
[6]   Performance of empirical BLUP and Bayesian prediction in small randomized complete block experiments [J].
Forkman, J. ;
Piepho, H-P. .
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE, 2013, 151 (03) :381-395
[7]   Confidence and Prediction in Linear Mixed Models: Do Not Concatenate the Random Effects. Application in an Assay Qualification Study [J].
Francq, Bernard G. ;
Lin, Dan ;
Hoyer, Walter .
STATISTICS IN BIOPHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 12 (03) :262-272
[8]   Confidence, prediction, and tolerance in linear mixed models [J].
Francq, Bernard G. ;
Lin, Dan ;
Hoyer, Walter .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2019, 38 (30) :5603-5622
[9]  
Genz A., 2009, Lecture notes in statistics, V195, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-01689-9
[10]   Evaluation of historical control data in carcinogenicity studies [J].
Greim, H ;
Gelbke, HP ;
Reuter, U ;
Thielmann, HW ;
Edler, L .
HUMAN & EXPERIMENTAL TOXICOLOGY, 2003, 22 (10) :541-549