An Approximate Quasi-Likelihood Approach for Error-Prone Failure Time Outcomes and Exposures

Lillian A. Boe; Lesley F. Tinker; Pamela A. Shaw

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2004.01112

An Approximate Quasi-Likelihood Approach for Error-Prone Failure Time Outcomes and Exposures

Lillian A. Boe·Lesley F. Tinker·Pamela A. Shaw

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Measurement error arises commonly in clinical research settings that rely on data from electronic health records or large observational cohorts. In particular, self-reported outcomes are typical in cohort studies for chronic diseases such as diabetes in order to avoid the burden of expensive diagnostic tests. Dietary intake, which is also commonly collected by self-report and subject to measurement error, is a major factor linked to diabetes and other chronic diseases. These errors can bias exposure-disease associations that ultimately can mislead clinical decision-making. We have extended an existing semiparametric likelihood-based method for handling error-prone, discrete failure time outcomes to also address covariate error. We conduct an extensive numerical study to compare the proposed method to the naive approach that ignores measurement error in terms of bias and efficiency in the estimation of the regression parameter of interest. In all settings considered, the proposed method showed minimal bias and maintained coverage probability, thus outperforming the naive analysis which showed extreme bias and low coverage. This method is applied to data from the Women's Health Initiative to assess the association between energy and protein intake and the risk of incident diabetes mellitus. Our results show that correcting for errors in both the self-reported outcome and dietary exposures leads to considerably different hazard ratio estimates than those from analyses that ignore measurement error, which demonstrates the importance of correcting for both outcome and covariate error. Computational details and R code for implementing the proposed method are presented in Section S1 of the Supplementary Materials.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Lillian A. Boe, Lesley F. Tinker, Pamela A. Shaw. 2021-02-04. An Approximate Quasi-Likelihood Approach for Error-Prone Failure Time Outcomes and Exposures. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.01112

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗