Preprint / Version 1

Quasi-likelihood ratio tests and the Bartlett-type correction for improved inferences of the modified Poisson and least-squares regressions for binary outcomes

##article.authors##

  • Hisashi Noma Department of Data Science, The Institute of Statistical Mathematics
  • Hiroshi Sunada Advanced Medicine, Innovation and Clinical Research Center, Tottori University Hospital
  • Masahiko Gosho Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51094/jxiv.1037

Keywords:

generalized linear model, estimating equation, quasi-likelihood, bootstrap, separation problem

Abstract

Logistic regression has been a standard multivariate analysis method for binary outcomes in clinical and epidemiological studies; however, the odds ratios cannot be interpreted as effect measures directly. The modified Poisson and least-squares regressions are alternative effective methods to provide risk ratio and risk difference estimates. However, their ordinary Wald-type inference methods using the sandwich variance estimator seriously underestimate the statistical errors under small or moderate sample settings. In this article, we develop alternative likelihood-ratio-type inference methods for these regression analyses based on Wedderburn’s quasi-likelihood theory. A remarkable advantage of the proposed methods is that we have correct information for the true models (i.e., the binomial log-linear and linear models). Using this modeling information, we develop an effective parametric bootstrap algorithm for accurate inferences. In particular, we propose the Bartlett-type mean calibration approach and bootstrap test-based approach for the quasi-likelihood ratio statistic. In addition, we propose another computationally efficient modified approximate quasi-likelihood ratio statistic whose large sample distribution can be approximated by the chi-squared distribution and its bootstrap inference method. In numerical studies by simulations, the new bootstrap-based methods outperformed the current standard Wald-type confidence interval. We applied these methods to a clinical study of epilepsy.

Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this article.

Downloads *Displays the aggregated results up to the previous day.

Download data is not yet available.

References

Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1987;125:761-768.

Nurminen M. To use or not to use the odds ratio in epidemiologic analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 1995;11:365-371.

Rothman KJ, Greenland G, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.

McNutt LA, Wu C, Xue X, Hafner JP. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:940-3.

Wallenstein S, Bodian C. Epidemiologic programs for computers and calculators. Inferences on odds ratios, relative risks, and risk differences based on standard regression programs. Am J Epidemiol. 1987;126:346-55.

Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:702-6.

Cheung YB. A modified least-squares regression approach to the estimation of risk difference. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:1337-44.

Nelder JA, Wedderburn RWM. Generalized linear models. J Royal Stat Soc A. 1972;135:370-384.

Godambe VP, Heyde CC. Quasi-likelihood and optimal estimation. Int Stat Rev. 1987;55:231-244.

Wedderburn RWM. Quasi-likelihood functions, generalized linear models, and the Gauss-Newton method. Biometrika. 1974;61:439-447.

White H. Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica. 1982;50:1-25.

Gosho M, Ishii R, Noma H, Maruo K. A comparison of bias-adjusted generalized estimating equations for sparse binary data in small-sample longitudinal studies. Stat Med. 2023;42:2711-2727.

Gosho M, Noma H, Maruo K. Practical review and comparison of modified covariance estimators for linear mixed models in small-sample longitudinal studies with missing data. Int Stat Rev. 2021;89:550-572.

Albert A, Anderson JA. On the existence of the maximum likelihood estimates in logistic regression models. Biometrika. 1984;71:1-10.

Zorn C. A solution to separation in binary response models. Polit Anal. 2005;13:157-170.

Heinze G. A comparative investigation of methods for logistic regression with separated or nearly separated data. Stat Med. 2006;25:4216-4226.

Lang JB. Score and profile likelihood confidence intervals for contingency table parameters. Stat Med. 2008;27:5975-90.

Bartlett MS. Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proc Royal Soc A. 1937;160:268-282.

Cordeiro GM, Cribari-Neto F. An Introduction to Bartlett Correction and Bias Reduction. Springer; 2014.

Plackett RL. A historical note on the method of least squares. Biometrika. 1949;36:458-460.

David FN, Neyman J. Extension of the Markoff theorem on least squares. Stat Res Mem. 1938;2:105-116.

Liang K-Y, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13-22.

Burden RL, Faires JD. Numerical Analysis. 9th ed ed. Cengage Learning; 2011.

Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. 3rd ed. Wiley; 2013.

Venzon DJ, Moolgavkar SH. A method for computing profile likelihood-based confidence intervals. Appl Statist. 1988;37:87-94.

Efron B, Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. CRC Press; 1994.

Arai Y, Okanishi T, Noma H, et al. Prognostic factors for employment outcomes in patients with a history of childhood-onset drug-resistant epilepsy. Front Pediatr. 2023;11:1173126.

Noma H. Confidence intervals for a random-effects meta-analysis based on Bartlett-type corrections. Stat Med. 2011;30:3304-3312.

Uno S, Noma H, Gosho M. Firth-type penalized methods of the modified Poisson and least-squares regression analyses for binary outcomes. Biom J. 2024;66:e202400004.

Cordeiro GM, McCullagh P. Bias correction in generalized linear models. J Royal Stat Soc B. 1991;53:629-643.

Downloads

Posted


Submitted: 2025-01-10 14:57:39 UTC

Published: 2025-01-14 10:37:05 UTC
Section
General Medicine, Social Medicine, & Nursing Sciences