1 / 40

Likelihood Ratio Testing under Non-identifiability: Theory and Biomedical Applications

Likelihood Ratio Testing under Non-identifiability: Theory and Biomedical Applications. Kung-Yee Liang and Chongzhi Di Department Biostatistics Johns Hopkins University July 9-10, 2009 National Taiwan University. Outline. Challenges associated with likelihood inference

shelly-forbes
Download Presentation

Likelihood Ratio Testing under Non-identifiability: Theory and Biomedical Applications

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation 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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Likelihood Ratio Testing under Non-identifiability: Theory and Biomedical Applications Kung-Yee Liang and Chongzhi Di Department Biostatistics Johns Hopkins University July 9-10, 2009 National Taiwan University

  2. Outline • Challenges associated with likelihood inference • Nuisance parameters absent under null hypothesis • Some biomedical examples • Statistical implications • Class I: alternative representation of LR test statistic • Implications • Class II • Asymptotic null distribution of LR test statistic • Some alternatives • A genetic linkage example • Discussion

  3. Likelihood Inference Likelihood inference has been successful in a variety of scientific fields • LOD score method for genetic linkage • BRCA1 for breast cancer Hall et al. (1990) Science • Poisson regression for environmental health • Fine air particle (PM10) for increased mortality in total cause and in cardiovascular and respiratory causes Samet et al. (2000) NEJM • ML image reconstruction estimate for nuclear medicine • Diagnoses for myocardial infarction and cancers

  4. Challenges for Likelihood Inference • In the absence of sufficient substantive knowledge, likelihood function maybe difficult to fully specify • Genetic linkage for complex traits • Genome-wide association with thousands of SNPs • Gene expression data for tumor cells • There is computational issue as well for high-dimensional observations • High throughput data

  5. Challenges for Likelihood Inference (con’t) • Impacts of nuisance parameters • Inconsistency of MLE with many nuisance parameters (Neyman-Scott problem) • Different scientific conclusions with different nuisance parameter values • Ill-behaved likelihood function • Asymptotic approximation not ready

  6. Challenges for Likelihood Inference (con’t) • There are situations where some of the “regularity” conditions may be violated • Boundary issue (variance components, genetic linkage, etc.) Self & Liang (1987) JASA • Discrete parameter space Lindsay & Roeder (1986) JASA • Singular information matrix (admixture model) Rotnitzky et al (2000) Bernoulli

  7. Nuisance Parameters Absent under Null Ex. I.1 (Polar coordinate for bivariate normal) Under H0: δ = 0, γ is absent Davies (1977) Biometrika Andrews and Ploberger (1994) Econometrica

  8. Examples (con’t) Ex. I.2 (Sterotype model for ordinal categorical response) For Y = 2, .., C, log Pr(Y = j)/Pr(Y = 1) = αj + βjtx, j = 2,..,C = αj + φj βtx 0 = φ1 ≤ φ2 … ≤ φC = 1 Under H0: β = 0, φj ’s are absent Anderson (1984) JRSSB

  9. Examples (con’t) Ex. I.3 (Variance component models) In certain situations, the covariance matrix of continuous and multivariate observations could be expressed as δM(γ) + λ1M1 + … +λqMq A hypothesis of interest is H0: δ = 0 (γ is absent) Ritz and Skovgaard (2005) Biometrika

  10. Examples (con’t) Ex. I.4 (Gene-gene interactions) Consider the following logistic regression model: logit Pr(Y = 1|S1, S2) = α + ΣkδkS1k + ΣjλkS2j + γΣkΣjδkλj S1k S2j To test genetic association between gene one (S1) by taking into account potential interaction with gene two (S2), the hypothesis of interest is H0: δ1 = … = δK = 0 (γ is absent) Chatterjee et al. (2005) American Journal of Human Genetics

  11. Examples (con’t) Ex. II.1 (Admixture models) f(y; δ, γ) = δ p(y; γ) + (1 – δ) p(y; γ0) δ: proportion of linked families γ: recombination fraction (γ0= 0.5) Smith (1963) Annals of Human Genetics The null hypothesis of no genetic linkage can be cast as H0: δ = 0 (γ is absent) or H0: γ = γ0 (δ is absent)

  12. Examples (con’t) Ex. II.2 (Change point) logit Pr(Y = 1|x) = β0 + βx + δ(x – γ)+ (x – γ)+ = x – γ if x – γ > 0 and 0 if otherwise • Alcohol consumption protective for MI when consuming less than γ, but harmful when exceeding the threshold Pastor et al. (1998) American Journal of Epidemiology Hypothesis of no threshold existing can be cast as H0: δ = 0 (γ is absent) or H0: γ = ∞ (δ is absent)

  13. Examples (con’t) Ex. II.3 (Non-linear alternative) logit Pr(Y = 1|x) = β0 + βx + δh(x; γ) e.g., h(x; γ) = exp(xγ) – 1 • The effect of alcohol consumption on risk, through log odds, of MI is non-linear if γ ≠ 0 The hypothesis of linearity relationship with a specific non-linear alternative can be cast as H0: δ = 0 (γ is absent) or H0: γ = 0 (δ is absent) Gallant (1977) JASA

  14. Characteristics of Examples Majority of examples can be characterized as f(y, x; δhy,x(γ, β), β) Class I Class II H0: δ = 0 H0: δ = 0 or γ = γ0 ( hy,x(γ0, β) = 0 )

  15. Figure: expected log likelihood function for three cases

  16. Class I: Asymptotic For H0: δ = 0, 1. LRT = 2{logL( ) – logL(0, •)} = supγ 2{logL( , γ) – logL(0, •)} = supγ LRT(γ) 2. LRT(γ) = S(γ)t I-1(γ)S(γ) + op(1) = W2(γ) + op(1), where S(γ) = ∂logL(δ, γ)/∂δ|δ=0, I(γ) = var{S(γ)} W(γ) = I-1/2(γ) S(γ) and W(γ) is a Gaussian process in γ with mean 0, variance 1 and autocorrelation ρ(γ1, γ2) = cov{W(γ1), W(γ2)}

  17. Class I: Asymptotic (con’t) • Results were derived previously by Davies (1977, Biometrika) • No analytical form available in general • Approximation, simulation or resampling methods Kim and Siegmund (1989) Biometrika Zhu and Zhang (2006) JRSSB Q.: Can simplification be taken place for • Asymptotic null distribution? • Approximating the p-value?

  18. Class I: Principal Component Representation Principal component decomposition • K could be finite or ∞ • {ξ1, …,ξK} are independent r.v.’s • ξk ~ N(0, λk), k = 1, .., K • ρ(γ, γ) = Σkλkωk(γ)2 = 1

  19. Class I: Principal Component Representation (con’t) W2(γ) = {Σkξkωk(γ)}2 ≤ {Σkξk2/λk} {Σkλkωk(γ)2} = {Σkξk2/λk} Consequently, one has supγW2(γ) = supγ {Σkξkωk(γ)}2 ≤ {Σkξk2/λk} ~ • The asymptotic distribution of LRT under Ho is bounded by

  20. Class I: Simplification • Simplify to if K < ∞ and for almost every (ξ1, …, ξK), there exists γ such that λ1ω1(γ)/ξ1 = ….. = λKωK(γ)/ξK Ex. I.1. (Polar coordinate for bivariate normal) For any , there exists γε [0, π) such that • LRT ~ instead of H0: δ = 0 ↔ H0: μ1 = μ2

  21. Class I: Simplification (con’t) • Simplify to if S(γ) = h(γ) g(Y) • ρ(γ1, γ2) = 1 Ex.: Modified admixture models γ p(y; δ) + (1 – γ) p(y; δ0), γε [a, 1] with a > 0 fixed H0: δ = δ0 (γ is absent) and the score function for δ at δ0 is S(γ) = γ∂logp(y; δ0)/∂δ • Known as restricted LRT for testing H0: δ = δ0 • Has been used in genetic linkage studies Lamdeni and Pons (1993) Biometrics Shoukri and Lathrop (1993) Biometrics

  22. Class I: Approximation for P-values When simplification fails: Step 1: Calculate W(γ) and ρ(γ1, γ2) Step 2: Estimate eigenvalues {λ1, …, λK} and eigenfunctions {ω1, …, ωK}, where K is chosen so that first K components explain more than 95% variation Step 3: Choose a set of dense grid {γ1, …, γM} and for i = 1, …, N, repeat the following steps: • Simulate ξik ~ N(0, λk) for k = 1, …, K • Calculate Wi(γm) = {Σkξikωk(γm)}2 for each m • Find the maximum of {Wi(γ1), …, Wi(γM)}, Ri say {R1, …, RN} approximates the null distribution of LRT

  23. Class II: Some New Results • Consider the class of family f(y, x; δhy,x(γ, β), β), where hy,x(γ0, β) = 0 for all y and x H0: δ = 0 or γ = γ0 Tasks: 1. Derive asymptotic distribution of LRT under H0 2. Present alternative approaches • Illustrate through Ex. II.1 (Admixture models) δ Binom (m, γ) + (1 – δ) Binom (m, γ0) δε [0, 1] and γε [0, 0.5], hy,x(γ, β) = p(y; γ) – p(y; γ0) • For simplicity, assuming β is absent

  24. Class II: LRT Representation Under H0, f(y, x; δ, γ) = f(y, x; 0, • ) = f(y, x; • , γ0 ), LRT = supδ,γ 2{logL(δ, γ) – logL(0, • )} = supδ,γ LRT(δ, γ) = max {sup1,4 LRT(a), sup2,4 LRT(b), sup3 LRT(a, b)}, here for fixed a, b > 0 and γ0 = 0.5: Region 1: δε [a, 1], γε [0.5 – b, 0.5] Region 2: δε [0, a], γε [0, 0.5 – b] Region 3: δε [0, a], γε [0.5 – b, 0.5] Region 4: δε [a, 1], γε [0, 0.5 – b]

  25. Class II: Four Sub-Regions of Parameter Spaces

  26. Class II: Regions 1 & 4 With δε [a, 1], this reduces to Class I, and sup1,4 LRT(a)= supδ { + op(1)} W1(δ) = I1-½(δ)S1(δ) S1(δ) = ∂logL(δ, γ)/∂γ|γ = γ0, I1(δ) = var(S1(δ)) For the admixture models, • S1(δ) = δ ∂log p(y; γ0)}/∂γ, which is proportional to δ • is independent of δ

  27. Class II: Regions 2 & 4 With γε [0, γ0 – b], this reduces to Class I, and sup2,4 LRT(b)= supγ { + op(1)} W2(γ) = I2-½(γ)S2(γ) S2(γ) = ∂logL(δ, γ)/∂δ|δ = 0, I2(γ) = var(S2(γ)) For the admixture models, • S2(γ) = {p(y; γ) – p(y; γ0)}/p(y; γ0) • W2(γ) → ∂log p(y; γ0)}/∂γ = W1 as γ → γ0 (or b → 0)

  28. Class II: Region 3 With δε [0, a], γε [0.5 – b, 0.5], expand at [0, 0.5] sup3 LRT(a, b) = supδ,γ { + op(1)} W3 = I3-½S3 S3 = ∂2logp(y; 0, 0.5)/∂δ∂γ, I3 = var(S3) For the admixture models, • S3 = ∂log p(y; γ0)}/∂γ and W3 = W1

  29. Class II: Asymptotic Distribution of LRT Combining three regions and let a, b → 0, LRT = max {sup1,4 LRT(a), sup2,4 LRT(b), sup3 LRT(a,b)} = max { , sup [W2(γ)]2, } → sup {W2(γ)}2 , where • The asymptotic null distribution of LRT is supremum of squared Gaussian process w.r.t. γ • Simplification (null distribution and approximation to p-values) can be adopted from Class I

  30. Class II: Alternatives Question: Can one find alternatives test statistics with conventional asymptotic null distributions? • Restricted LRT: limit range for δ to [a, 1] with a > 0 (Region 1 and 4) TR(a) = sup1,4 LRT(a) = • TR(a) decreases in a • How to choose a? • Smaller the a, the better • Chi-square approximation maybe in doubt

  31. Class II: Alternatives (con’t) 2. Smooth version (penalized LRT) Instead of excluding (δ, γ) values in Regions 2 & 3, they are “penalized” toward δ = 0 by considering penalized log-likelihood: PL(δ, γ; c) = log L(δ, γ) + c g(δ), where g(δ) ≤ 0 is a smooth penalty with , maximized at δ0 and c > 0 controlling the magnitude of penalty • Bayesian interpretation • g(δ) could be “prior” on δ

  32. Class II: Penalized likelihood Define the penalized LR test statistic for H0: γ = γ0 PLRT(c) = 2 {sup PL(δ, γ; c) – PL(δ0, γ0; c)} Under H0: PLRT(c) → as n → ∞ • Proof is more demanding* • Similar concerns to restricted LRT • Decreasing in c • Chi-square approximation maybe invalid with small c • Lose power if δ is small (linked families is small in proportion) *Different approach for mixture/admixture model was provided by by Chen et al. (2001, 2004) and Fu et al. (2006)

  33. Application: Genetic Linkage for Schizophrenia • Conducted by Ann Pulver at Hopkins • 486 individuals from 54 multiplex families • Interested in marker D22S942 in chromosome 22 • Schizophrenia is relatively high in prevalence with strong evidence of genetic heterogeneity • To take into account of this phenomenon, consider δ Binom (m, γ) + (1 – δ) Binom (m, γ0), where δε [0, 1], γε [0, 0.5] with γ0 = 0.5

  34. Genetic Linkage Study of Schizophrenia (con’t) With this admixture model considered, • LRT = 6.86, p-value = 0.007 • PLRT with • PLRT(3.0) = 5.36, p-value = 0.010 • PLRT(0.5) = 5.49, p-value = 0.009 • PLRT(0.01) = 6.84, p-value = 0.004 • Which p-value do we trust better?

  35. Figure: asymptotic vs empirical distribution of the LRT for genetic linkage example

  36. Discussion • Issue considered, namely, nuisance parameters absent under null, is common in practice • Examples can be classified into Class I and II • Class I: H0 can only be specified through δ (= 0) • Class II: H0 can specified either in δ (= 0) or γ (= γ0) • For Class I, asymptotic distribution of LRT is well known, and through principal component representation • Deriving sufficient conditions for simple null distribution • Proposing a means to approximate p-values

  37. Discussion (con’t) • For Class II, less well developed • Deriving asymptotic null distribution of LRT • Through this derivation, we observe • Connection with Class I • Connection with RLRT and PLRT • Proof on asymptotic of PLRT non-trivial • Shedding light on why penalty applied to δ not to γ? • Pointing out some peculiar features and shortcoming of these two approaches • A genetic linkage example on schizophrenia was presented for illustration

  38. Discussion (con’t) Some future work: • Constructing confidence intervals/regions • Generalizing to partial/conditional likelihood • Cox PH model with change point (nuisance function) • Extending to estimating function approach in the absence of likelihood function to work with • Linkage study of IBD sharing for affected sibpairs E(S(t)) = 1 + (1 - 2θt,γ)2 E(S(γ)) = 1 + (1 - 2θt,γ)2δ θt,γ = (1 – exp(–0.02|t – γ|)/2

More Related