- 76 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Biostat 200 Lecture 8

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- Hypothesis testing
- Choose a null hypothesis, one-sided or two sided test
- Set , significance level, to set the probability of a Type I error ( P(reject H0 | H0 )
- For a given test, a test statistic is calculated, e.g. for a two-sample t-test the test statistic is:

- For an ANOVA, the test statistic is:
- For a Wilcoxon rank sum/Mann Whitney test, the test statistic is:

- These test statistics are derived to follow the corresponding theoretical distribution (tstat follows the t distribution, F statistic follows the F distribution, zwfollows the Standard Normal) if certain assumptions are met.
- These assumptions are:
- For ttest and ANOVA, the underlying distribution of the random variable being measured (X) should be approximately normal
- In reality the t-test is rather robust, so with large enough sample size and without very large outliers, it is ok to use the t-test

- For the ANOVA, the variance of the subgroups should be approximately equal (Barlett’s test on Stata output)
- For the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test the underlying distributions must have the same basic shape

- For ttest and ANOVA, the underlying distribution of the random variable being measured (X) should be approximately normal

- One hypothesis test will be “more conservative” than another if that test is less likely to reject the null
- A test with a lower level of is more conservative, e.g. =0.01, sometimes used in clinical trials
- A two-sided test is more conservative than a one-sided test, because even though you are using the same total level, it is divided between the two tails
- If the assumptions of a parametric test are met or are not grossly violated, then a non-parametric test is more conservative than the corresponding parametric test

. ttestextot, by( sex)

Two-sample t test with equal variances

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Group | Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]

---------+--------------------------------------------------------------------

male | 295 114.9458 7.258138 124.6626 100.6613 129.2303

female | 237 152.1498 11.27012 173.5014 129.9469 174.3527

---------+--------------------------------------------------------------------

combined | 532 131.5197 6.478136 149.419 118.7938 144.2457

---------+--------------------------------------------------------------------

diff | -37.20403 12.94578 -62.63536 -11.77269

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

diff = mean(male) - mean(female) t = -2.8738

Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 530

Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0

Pr(T < t) = 0.0021 Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.0042 Pr(T > t) = 0.9979

. onewayextot sex

Analysis of Variance

Source SS df MS F Prob > F

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Between groups 181902.478 1 181902.478 8.26 0.0042

Within groups 11673228.1 530 22024.9586

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 11855130.5 531 22326.0462

Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(1) = 28.7299 Prob>chi2 = 0.000

When there are 2 groups, the F-statistic equals the t-statistic squared

. ranksumextot, by(sex)

Two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test

sex | obs rank sum expected

-------------+---------------------------------

male | 295 74838.5 78617.5

female | 237 66939.5 63160.5

-------------+---------------------------------

combined | 532 141778 141778

unadjusted variance 3105391.25

adjustment for ties -37529.45

----------

adjusted variance 3067861.80

Ho: extot(sex==male) = extot(sex==female)

z = -2.158

Prob > |z| = 0.0310

. kwallisextot, by(sex)

Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test

+-------------------------+

| sex | Obs | Rank Sum |

|--------+-----+----------|

| male | 295 | 74838.50 |

| female | 237 | 66939.50 |

+-------------------------+

chi-squared = 4.599 with 1 d.f.

probability = 0.0320

chi-squared with ties = 4.655 with 1 d.f.

probability = 0.0310

When there are two groups, the chi-square statistic is equal to the z statistic squared (here slightly different because of ties)

- With the exception of the proportion test, all the previous tests were for comparing continuous outcomes and categorical predictors
- E.g., CD4 count by alcohol consumption
- Minutes of exercise by sex

- We often have dichotomous outcomes and predictors
- E.g. Had at least one cold in the prior 3 months by sex

- We can make tables of the number of observations falling into each category
- These are called contingency tables
- E.g. At least one cold by sex
. tab coldany sex

At least |

one cold, | Biological sex at

prior 3 | birth

months | male female | Total

-----------+----------------------+----------

no | 131 100 | 231

yes | 166 140 | 306

-----------+----------------------+----------

Total | 297 240 | 537

- Often summaries of counts of disease versus no disease and exposed versus not exposed
- Frequently 2x2 but can generalize to n x k
- n rows, k columns

- Note that Stata sorts on the numeric value, so for 0-1 variables the disease state will be the 2nd row

Pagano and Gavreau, Chapter 15

- Contingency tables are usually summaries of data that originally looked like this.

Pagano and Gavreau, Chapter 15

. list coldany sex

+------------------+

| coldany sex |

|------------------|

1. | yes male |

2. | no male |

3. | yes female |

4. | yes female |

5. | no male |

|------------------|

6. | no male |

7. | no male |

8. | yes male |

9. | yes male |

10. | yes male |

|------------------|

11. | no female |

12. | yes male |

13. | no male |

14. | yes female |

15. | no female |

|------------------|

16. | yes female |

. list coldany sex, nolabel

+---------------+

| coldany sex |

|---------------|

1. | 1 0 |

2. | 0 0 |

3. | 1 1 |

4. | 1 1 |

5. | 0 0 |

|---------------|

6. | 0 0 |

7. | 0 0 |

8. | 1 0 |

9. | 1 0 |

10. | 1 0 |

|---------------|

11. | 0 1 |

12. | 1 0 |

13. | 0 0 |

14. | 1 1 |

15. | 0 1 |

|---------------|

16. | 1 1 |

- We want to know whether the incidence of colds varies by gender.
- We could test the null hypothesis that the cumulative incidence of ≥1 cold in males equals that of females. The cumulative incidence is a proportion.
H0: pmales= pfemales HA: pmales≠ pfemales

. prtest coldany, by(sex)

Two-sample test of proportion male: Number of obs = 297

female: Number of obs = 240

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Variable | Mean Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]

-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------

male | .5589226 .0288108 .5024545 .6153907

female | .5833333 .0318234 .5209605 .6457061

-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------

diff | -.0244108 .0429278 -.1085476 .0597261

| under Ho: .042973 -0.57 0.570

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

diff = prop(male) - prop(female) z = -0.5680

Ho: diff = 0

Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0

Pr(Z < z) = 0.2850 Pr(|Z| < |z|) = 0.5700 Pr(Z > z) = 0.7150

- There are other methods to do this (chi-square test)
- Why?
- These methods are more general – can be used when you have more than 2 levels in either variable

- We will start with the 2x2 example however

- Overall, the cumulative incidence of least one cold in the prior 3 months is 306/537=.569. This is the marginal probability of having a cold
- There were 297 males and 240 females
- Under the null hypothesis, the expected cumulative incidence in each group is the overall cumulative incidence
- So we would expect 297*.569=169.2 with at least one cold in the males, and 240*.569=136.8 with at least one cold in the females

At least |

one cold, | Biological sex at

prior 3 | birth

months | male female | Total

-----------+----------------------+----------

no | 131 100 | 231

yes | 166 140 | 306

-----------+----------------------+----------

Total | 297 240 | 537

- We can also calculate the expected number with no colds under the null hypothesis of no difference
- Males: 297*(1-.569) = 127.8
- Females: 240*(1-.569) = 103.2

- We can make a table of the expected counts

EXPECTED COUNTS UNDER THE NULL HYPOTHESIS

At least |

one cold, | Biological sex at

prior 3 | birth

months | male female | Total

-----------+----------------------+----------

no | 127.8 103.2 | 231

yes | 169.2 136.8 | 306

-----------+----------------------+----------

Total | 297 240 | 537

Observed data

At least |

one cold, | Biological sex at

prior 3 | birth

months | male female | Total

-----------+----------------------+----------

no | 131 100 | 231

yes | 166 140 | 306

-----------+----------------------+----------

Total | 297 240 | 537

- Generically

- The Chi-square test compares the observed frequency (O) in each cell with the expected frequency (E) under the null hypothesis of no difference
- The differences O-E are squared, divided by E, and added up over all the cells
- The sum of this is the test statistic and follows a chi-square distribution

- The chi-square test statistic (for the test of independence in contingency tables) for a 2x2 table (dichotomous outcome, dichotomous exposure)
- i is the index for the cells in the table – there are 4 cells
- This test statistic is compared to the chi-square distribution with 1 degree of freedom

Pagano and Gavreau, Chapter 15

- The chi-square test statistic for the test of independence in an nxk contingency table is
- This test statistic is compared to the chi-square distribution
- The degrees of freedom for the this test are (n-1)*(k-1), so for a 2x2 there is 1 degree of freedom
- n=the number of rows; k=the number of columns in the nxk table
- The chi-square distribution with 1 degree of freedom is actually the square of a standard normal distribution

- Expected cell sizes should all be >1 and <20% should be <5
- The Chi-square test is for two sided hypotheses

Pagano and Gavreau, Chapter 15

- For the example, the chi-square statistic for our 2x2 is
(131-127.8)2 /127.8 + (100-103.2)2 /103.2 + (166-169.2)2 /169.2 + (140-136.8)2 /136.8 = .323

- There is 1 degree of freedom
- Probability of observing a chi-square value with 1 degree of freedom of .323 is .570
. di chi2tail(1,.323)

.56981031

- Fail to reject the null hypothesis of independence

Pagano and Gavreau, Chapter 15

. tab coldany sex, chi

At least |

one cold, | Biological sex at

prior 3 | birth

months | male female | Total

-----------+----------------------+----------

no | 131 100 | 231

yes | 166 140 | 306

-----------+----------------------+----------

Total | 297 240 | 537

Pearson chi2(1) = 0.3227 Pr = 0.570

p-value

Test statistic (df)

tab coldany sex, row col chi

+-------------------+

| Key |

|-------------------|

| frequency |

| row percentage |

| column percentage |

+-------------------+

At least |

one cold, | Biological sex at

prior 3 | birth

months | male female | Total

-----------+----------------------+----------

no | 131 100 | 231

| 56.71 43.29 | 100.00

| 44.11 41.67 | 43.02

-----------+----------------------+----------

yes | 166 140 | 306

| 54.25 45.75 | 100.00

| 55.89 58.33 | 56.98

-----------+----------------------+----------

Total | 297 240 | 537

| 55.31 44.69 | 100.00

| 100.00 100.00 | 100.00

Pearson chi2(1) = 0.3227 Pr = 0.570

- Because we using discrete cell counts to approximate a chi-squared distribution, for 2x2 tables some use the Yatescorrection
- Not computed in Stata

- When we talk about the chi-square test, we are saying it is a test of independence of two variables, usually exposure and disease.
- We also say we are testing the “association” between the two variables.
- If the test is statistically significant (p<0.05), we often say that the two variables are not independent or we say the association is statistically significant.

- For small cell sizes in 2x2 tables, use the Fisher exact test
- It is based on a discrete distribution called the hypergeometric distribution
- For 2x2 tables, you can choose a one-sided or two-sided test
. tab coldany sex, chi exact

At least |

one cold, | Biological sex at

prior 3 | birth

months | male female | Total

-----------+----------------------+----------

no | 131 100 | 231

yes | 166 140 | 306

-----------+----------------------+----------

Total | 297 240 | 537

Pearson chi2(1) = 0.3227 Pr = 0.570

Fisher's exact = 0.599

1-sided Fisher's exact = 0.316

Pagano and Gavreau, Chapter 15

- The chi-square test can be used for more than 2 levels of exposure
- The null hypothesis is p1 = p2 = ... = pc
- The alternative hypothesis is is that not all the proportions are the same

- Note that, like ANOVA, a statistically significant result does not tell you which level differed from the others
- Also when you have more than 2 groups, all tests are 2-sided

Pagano and Gavreau, Chapter 15

tab coldany racegrp, chi col

+-------------------+

| Key |

|-------------------|

| frequency |

| column percentage |

+-------------------+

At least |

one cold, |

prior 3 | racegrp

months | White, Ca Asian/PI Other | Total

-----------+---------------------------------+----------

no | 132 71 30 | 233

| 42.31 44.65 44.12 | 43.23

-----------+---------------------------------+----------

yes | 180 88 38 | 306

| 57.69 55.35 55.88 | 56.77

-----------+---------------------------------+----------

Total | 312 159 68 | 539

| 100.00 100.00 100.00 | 100.00

Pearson chi2(2) = 0.2614 Pr = 0.877

Pagano and Gavreau, Chapter 15

- Another way to state the null hypothesis for the chi-square test:
- Factor A is not associated with Factor B

- The alternative is
- Factor A is associated with Factor B

- For more than 2 levels of the outcome variable this would make the most sense

Note that this is a 3x3 table, so the chi-square test has 2x2=4 degrees of freedom

. tab auditc_cat racegrp, chi exact col

+-------------------+

| Key |

|-------------------|

| frequency |

| column percentage |

+-------------------+

| racegrp

auditc_cat | White, Ca Asian/PI Other | Total

-------------------+---------------------------------+----------

no alcohol | 30 41 13 | 84

| 9.62 25.79 19.12 | 15.58

-------------------+---------------------------------+----------

low risk | 141 75 25 | 241

| 45.19 47.17 36.76 | 44.71

-------------------+---------------------------------+----------

at risk, or higher | 141 43 30 | 214

| 45.19 27.04 44.12 | 39.70

-------------------+---------------------------------+----------

Total | 312 159 68 | 539

| 100.00 100.00 100.00 | 100.00

Pearson chi2(4) = 28.6067 Pr = 0.000

Fisher's exact = 0.000

What is the null hypothesis?

- Matched pairs
- Matched case-control study
- Before and after data

- E.g. Self-reported alcohol consumption before and after being consented for alcohol biomarker specimen collection

Self-reported alcohol consumption in Uganda

But there really are only 62 pairs!

- Null hypothesis: The groups change their self-reported alcohol consumption equally; there is no association between self-reported alcohol consumption and before versus after measures
- The concordant pairs provide no information

- The test statistic for NcNemar’s test is
- r and s represent the discordant cell counts
- This statistic has an approximate chi-square distribution with 1 degree of freedom
- The -1 is a continuity correction, not all versions of the test use this, some use .5
- For our example Χ2 = (13-1)2/13 = 11.08
- Compare to chi-square distribution, df=1
. di chi2tail(1,11.076923)

.00087409

Reject the null

- For small samples (r+s<25), use exact methods

Matched case-control study command will do the same

. mcci 12 13 0 37

| Controls |

Cases | Exposed Unexposed | Total

-----------------+------------------------+------------

Exposed | 12 13 | 25

Unexposed | 0 37 | 37

-----------------+------------------------+------------

Total | 12 50 | 62

McNemar's chi2(1) = 13.00 Prob > chi2 = 0.0003

Exact McNemar significance probability = 0.0002

Proportion with factor

Cases .4032258

Controls .1935484 [95% Conf. Interval]

--------- --------------------

difference .2096774 .0922202 .3271346

ratio 2.083333 1.385374 3.132929

rel. diff. .26 .138419 .381581

odds ratio . 3.04772 . (exact)

The odds ratio r/s is not calcuable here because the denominator is 0

- Cases: Treatment failure: HIV viral load after 6 months of ART >400
- Controls: HIV viral load <400
- Matched on sex, duration on treatment, and treatment regimen class

. mcc lastalc_case lasttime_alc_3mos

| Controls |

Cases | Exposed Unexposed | Total

-----------------+------------------------+------------

Exposed | 4 9 | 13

Unexposed | 3 11 | 14

-----------------+------------------------+------------

Total | 7 20 | 27

McNemar's chi2(1) = 3.00 Prob > chi2 = 0.0833

Exact McNemar significance probability = 0.1460

Proportion with factor

Cases .4814815

Controls .2592593 [95% Conf. Interval]

--------- --------------------

difference .2222222 -.0518969 .4963413

ratio 1.857143 .9114712 3.78397

rel. diff. .3 .0159742 .5840258

odds ratio 3 .7486845 17.228 (exact)

- The chi-square test is a test of independence
- It does not give us an estimate of how much the two groups differ, i.e. how much the disease outcome varies by the exposure variable
- We use odds ratios (OR) and relative risks (RR) as measures of ratios of disease outcome
- The odds ratio and the relative risk are just two examples of “measures of association”

- Risk ratio (or relative risk or relative rate)
= P (disease | exposed) / P(disease | unexposed)

= Re / Ru= a/(a+c) / b/(b+d)

- Note that you cannot calculate this entity when you have chosen your sample based on disease status
- I.e. Case-control study – you have fixed a prior the probability of disease! Relative risk is a NO GO!

- If an event occurs with probability p, the odds of the event are p/(1-p) to 1
- If an event has probability .5, the odds are 1:1
- Conversely, if the odds of an event are a:b, the probability of a occurring is a/(a+b)
- The odds of horse A winning over horse B winning are 2:1 the probability of horse A winning is .667.

- Odds of disease among the exposed persons
= P(disease | exposed) / (1-P(disease | exposed))

= [ a / (a + c) ] / [ c / (a + c) ] = a/c

- Odds of disease among the unexposed persons
= P(disease | unexposed) / (1-P(disease | unexposed))

= [ b / (b + d) ] / [ d / (b + d) ] = b/d

- Odds ratio = a/c / b/d = ad/bc

- Note that the odds ratio is also equal to
[ P(exposed | disease)/(1-P(exposed |disease) ] /

[ P(exposed | no disease)/(1-P(exposed | no disease) ]

- This is needed for case-control studies in which the proportion with disease is fixed (so you can’t calculate the odds of disease)

- If the OR or RR equal 1, then there is no effect of exposure on disease.
- If the OR or RR >1 then disease is increased in the presence of exposure. (Risk factor)
- If the OR or RR <1 then disease is decreased in the presence of exposure. (Protective factor)

- When a disease is rare, i.e. the risk is <10%, the odds ratio approximates the risk ratio
- The odds ratio overestimates the risk ratio
- Why use it? – statistical properties, usefulness in case-control studies

At least |

one cold, | Biological sex at

prior 3 | birth

months | male female | Total

-----------+----------------------+----------

no | 131 100 | 231

yes | 166 140 | 306

-----------+----------------------+----------

Total | 297 240 | 537

What is the (estimated) odds ratio?

- Remember the 95% confidence interval for a mean µ
Lower Confidence Limit: Upper Confidence Limit:

- The odds ratio is not normally distributed (it ranges from 0 to infinity)
- But the natural log (ln) of the odds ratio is approximately normal
- The estimate of the standard error of the estimated ln OR is
- This is based on a Taylor series approximation

- We calculate the 95% confidence interval for the log odds
- Then exponentiate back to obtain the 95% confidence interval for the OR

Tabodds outcomevar exposurevar , or

. tabodds coldany sex, or

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

sex | Odds Ratio chi2 P>chi2 [95% Conf. Interval]

-------------+-------------------------------------------------------------

male | 1.000000 . . . .

female | 1.104819 0.32 0.5704 0.782925 1.559057

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test of homogeneity (equal odds): chi2(1) = 0.32

Pr>chi2 = 0.5704

Score test for trend of odds: chi2(1) = 0.32

Pr>chi2 = 0.5704

cc coldany sex

Proportion

| Exposed Unexposed | Total Exposed

-----------------+------------------------+------------------------

Cases | 140 166 | 306 0.4575

Controls | 100 131 | 231 0.4329

-----------------+------------------------+------------------------

Total | 240 297 | 537 0.4469

| |

| Point estimate | [95% Conf. Interval]

|------------------------+------------------------

Odds ratio | 1.104819 | .7719549 1.582124 (exact)

Attr. frac. ex. | .0948746 | -.2954124 .3679383 (exact)

Attr. frac. pop | .0434067 |

+-------------------------------------------------

chi2(1) = 0.32 Pr>chi2 = 0.5700

Exact confidence intervals use the hypergeometric distribution

- The odds ratio is r/s
- The standard error of ln(OR) is
- So the 95% confidence interval for the estimated OR is

- Read Pagano and Gauvreau
- Pagano and Gauvreau Chapter 15 (review)
- Pagano and Gauvreau Chapter 16