1 / 36

Biostatistics 140.653 Case Study : Amateur Boxing & Neuropsychological Impairment

Biostatistics 140.653 Case Study : Amateur Boxing & Neuropsychological Impairment. July 14, 2011. Acknowledgments. Funding National Institutes of Health United States Olympic Foundation Collaborators Walter “Buzz” Stewart Charlie Hall, Scott Zeger, David Simon References

taylor-berger
Download Presentation

Biostatistics 140.653 Case Study : Amateur Boxing & Neuropsychological Impairment

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. Biostatistics 140.653Case Study: Amateur Boxing & Neuropsychological Impairment July 14, 2011

  2. Acknowledgments • Funding • National Institutes of Health • United States Olympic Foundation • Collaborators • Walter “Buzz” Stewart • Charlie Hall, Scott Zeger, David Simon • References • Stewart WF et al., A prospective study of CNS function in US amateur boxers, Am J Epidemiol 1994; 139: 573-88. • Bandeen-Roche K et al., Modelling disease progression in terms of exposure history, Statist Med 1999; 18:2899-2916.

  3. Introduction (Imagine: 1989 news photo of Larry Holmes pounding the face of James “Bonecrusher” Smith) • Well publicized: Boxing may cause neurological harm • ~ 1986: IOC explores eliminating boxing (for golf?) • Olympic boxing is amateur: different from pro • Research study initiated: NIH / USABF collaboration

  4. Scientific Question:Does boxing cause cerebral injury? • Hypothesized pathway: brain jarring

  5. Scientific Question:Does boxing cause cerebral injury? • Injury model • Mild, transient • Focal axonal damage, re-growth • No measurable long-term injury • Cell disruption sufficient to cause hemorrhage • Progressive axonal death • Measurable long-term injury

  6. Brief Study Design • "Full" Boxing club sample • NY, DC, Cleveland, St. Louis, Louisiana, Houston • N = 593 boxers • One baseline and three follow-up exams “per boxer”; 1988-1994 • N=493 with a first follow up • Outcomes • 17 neuropsychological tests (Today: Block Design) • Electrophysiologic Battery • Ataxia and Neurological Tests • Covariates • Primary: number of bouts boxed • Secondary: age, race, education, Ravens IQ score, club, non-boxing concussion history, drug test result

  7. Step 1:Formulate model • Question: Do blocks scores tend to decrease as # of bouts increases? • Critique an approach: “Pool” all four rounds of data, and regress bouts (Y) on blocks score (X) • Wrong direction: Should be blocks (Y) on bouts (X) • Independence assumption violated: Multiple measures on same person; also clustering within clubs • Weak causal content: Fails to use within-person change

  8. UnlinkingEffect evidence: Status versus Change

  9. UnlinkingEffect evidence: Status versus Change

  10. Model Building • Suppose goal = capture both relationships: status and change • Considered, rejected: E[Yit|Xi] = 0+ 1Xit • Y = blocks score; X=#bouts • i=people 1,…,n; t=times 1, 2 (…) • Way to think: status 1 & change 2 Allows age-related change between t1 and t2 Time 1: E[Yi1|Xi] = 0+ 1Xi1 Time 2: E[Yi2|Xi] = 0+ 1Xi1 + 2(Xi2-Xi1) + 3

  11. Model Building E[Yi1|Xi] = 0+ 1Xi1 E[Yi2|Xi] = 0+ 1Xi1 +2(Xi2-Xi1) + 3 i.e. E[Yit|Xi1,Xi2] = 0+ 1Xi1 +2(Xi2-Xi1)*1{t=2} + 31{t=2} • Interpret 3 • How to test for equal status, change relationships? f • Zero out other coefficients you can: Xi1 = Xi2-Xi1=0 • Then, time 2 mean = 0+ 3; time 1 mean = 0 • 3 = Mean change in block score among non-boxers thru time 2 • Test H0: 2 = 1

  12. Model Building • From now on: we’ll analyze relationship between change in blocks score(t2-t1) and • baselinebout total • change in bout total • N=413 in the analysis • Why the baseline bout total? • Models potentially delayed effect

  13. Exploratory Data Analysis blkdiff blbouts boutdiff y=0

  14. New model building goal • From now on: we’ll analyze relationship between change in blocks score(t2-t1) and • baselinebout total • change in bout total • In real life: validation, errors-in-variables (covariates) analysis

  15. Exploratory Data AnalysisScatterplot: Blocks Change vs. BL Bouts

  16. Exploratory Data AnalysisScatterplot: Blocks Change vs. BL Bouts .lowess blkdiff blbouts if blbouts < 75

  17. Modeling options • Linear Y, X model OTHERS? Highly sensitive to extreme points • Polynomial Y, X model • Replace X by √X, etc. (transform) • Categorize X • Spline Y, X model Obscure interpretation Wastes much exposure information; categories arbitrary?

  18. Spline ModelRelationship: Change in Blocks, Bouts • Choice of knots • Novice versus Open divisions: 10 bouts • Median of remaining bouts: 35 • Histogram suggests a cut at around 75:

  19. Spline ModelRelationship: Change in Blocks, Bouts • Order • Plot up to 75 bouts appears fairly linear • Smooth after 75 bouts appears fairly linear • (Population) Model: E[Yi2-Yi1|Xi1] = 0+ 1Xi1 +2(Xi1-10)+ + 3(Xi1-35)++4(Xi1-75)+ - Number of polynomial terms underlying relationship - Order = 1

  20. Aside • Suppose X = (0,1,5,11,14,30,36,55,78,102) • What is the design matrix for the model on the previous slide? (Posted version of slides will include answer)

  21. Design Matrix

  22. Regression model • regress blkdiff blbouts boutspl1 boutspl2 boutspl3 Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 413 -------------+------------------------------ F( 4, 408) = 1.92 Model | 281.256924 4 70.314231 Prob > F = 0.1058 Residual | 14922.6559 408 36.575137 R-squared = 0.0185 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.0089 Total | 15203.9128 412 36.9027011 Root MSE = 6.0477 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ blkdiff | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- blbouts | .2049663 .1111387 1.84 0.066 -.0135095 .4234422 boutspl1 | -.3300803 .145362 -2.27 0.024 -.6158321 -.0443284 boutspl2 | .1565677 .0787441 1.99 0.047 .0017729 .3113624 boutspl3 | -.033317 .0469676 -0.71 0.479 -.1256457 .0590117 _cons | 1.452344 .7033785 2.06 0.040 .0696462 2.835043 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mean per-bout diff in Blocks Change, Novice Boxers Mean Block Score Change, 0 Bouts Mean per-10 bout diff in Blocks Change, Novice Boxers? 2.05 points In each case, coefficient estimates the population mean!

  23. Regression model • regress blkdiff blbouts boutspl1 boutspl2 boutspl3 Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 413 -------------+------------------------------ F( 4, 408) = 1.92 Model | 281.256924 4 70.314231 Prob > F = 0.1058 Residual | 14922.6559 408 36.575137 R-squared = 0.0185 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.0089 Total | 15203.9128 412 36.9027011 Root MSE = 6.0477 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ blkdiff | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- blbouts | .2049663 .1111387 1.84 0.066 -.0135095 .4234422 boutspl1 | -.3300803 .145362 -2.27 0.024 -.6158321 -.0443284 boutspl2 | .1565677 .0787441 1.99 0.047 .0017729 .3113624 boutspl3 | -.033317 .0469676 -0.71 0.479 -.1256457 .0590117 _cons | 1.452344 .7033785 2.06 0.040 .0696462 2.835043 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Boxed t-test, CI tests H0: 4=0, i.e. no difference in per-bout difference in mean serial test performance change, above 75 bouts versus on range of 35-75 bouts

  24. Regression model • regress blkdiff blbouts boutspl1 boutspl2 Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 413 -------------+------------------------------ F( 3, 409) = 2.40 Model | 262.852541 3 87.6175137 Prob > F = 0.0675 Residual | 14941.0603 409 36.5307098 R-squared = 0.0173 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.0101 Total | 15203.9128 412 36.9027011 Root MSE = 6.0441 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ blkdiff | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- blbouts | .1943893 .110067 1.77 0.078 -.0219783 .4107569 boutspl1 | -.300474 .1391568 -2.16 0.031 -.5740259 -.0269222 boutspl2 | .1117487 .0469677 2.38 0.018 .0194205 .2040768 _cons | 1.480605 .7018227 2.11 0.035 .1009757 2.860235 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notice that effect attenuates a little bit, but standard error decreases, and t statistic increases.

  25. What is good, bad about the estimates? • The good • Accuracy (estimator is unbiased if correct mean model; SEs are accurate if correct A1-A4) • Precision (estimator is BLUE) • The bad • Not terribly robust (may be influenced by isolated points)

  26. The Estimated Relationship:Mean Block Score Change, Bouts Slope = .19-.30 = -.11 Slope = .19 Slope ≈ .19-.30+.11≈0

  27. Estimated Relationship:Mean Block Score Change, Bouts On bout range < 75

  28. Comments • Odd finding: Apparent benefit of novice boxing, and loss of benefit (back to nominal) in early open boxing • Checked for influence: Little • Are we being misled by relationships with other variables? • Age • BL blocks design score

  29. Relationship between block score change and baseline block score

  30. Regression ModelAdjusting for Baseline Block Score, Age • regress blkdiff blbouts boutspl1 boutspl2 boutspl3 cenblock cenage Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 413 -------------+------------------------------ F( 6, 406) = 6.99 Model | 1423.72075 6 237.286792 Prob > F = 0.0000 Residual | 13780.1921 406 33.9413598 R-squared = 0.0936 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.0802 Total | 15203.9128 412 36.9027011 Root MSE = 5.8259 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ blkdiff | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- blbouts | .1808688 .1071491 1.69 0.092 -.0297675 .3915052 boutspl1 | -.2856816 .1402603 -2.04 0.042 -.5614087 -.0099546 boutspl2 | .1390732 .0759187 1.83 0.068 -.0101697 .2883161 boutspl3 | -.0364184 .0452629 -0.80 0.422 -.1253974 .0525606 cenblock | -.1591111 .0324602 -4.90 0.000 -.2229221 -.0953 cenage | -.2683838 .1223957 -2.19 0.029 -.5089922 -.0277754 Little change in direct effects (here) from total (slide 22) . gen cenage=blage-17; . gen cenblock=blblocks-25 If final (blue) spline term removed, RSS = 13802.1648 ; SSreg = 1401.74799

  31. General F-testingIs there evidence of nonlinearity in the Blocks change / Bouts relationship? • Step 1: Fit model with age, baseline blocks score, baseline bouts only. (Call these variables X1) Save the RSS. . regress blkdiff blbouts cenblock cenage Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 413 Model | 1254.61956 3 418.20652 Prob > F = 0.0000 Residual | 13949.2933 409 34.1058515 R-squared = 0.0825 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.0758 Total | 15203.9128 412 36.9027011 Root MSE = 5.84 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ blkdiff | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- blbouts | -.0037381 .0065357 -0.57 0.568 -.0165858 .0091096 cenblock | -.1628229 .0324808 -5.01 0.000 -.2266731 -.0989727 cenage | -.2787612 .1224796 -2.28 0.023 -.5195294 -.0379931 _cons | 1.89059 .3536493 5.35 0.000 1.195393 2.585787 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  32. General F-testingIs there evidence of nonlinearity in the Blocks change / Bouts relationship? • Step 2: Fit model with age, baseline blocks score, baseline bouts, and spline terms for 10, 35 bouts • Done on slide 29. Save RSSL = 13802

  33. General F-testingIs there evidence of nonlinearity in the Blocks change / Bouts relationship? • Sequential ANOVA table: Source SS df MS Regression X1 Splines|X1 Residual Total 5 3 2 411 412 1401.7 SS/df (all cases) 1255 147= 13949-13802 13802 15204 (add) and 147 must add to 1402

  34. General F-testingIs there evidence of nonlinearity in the Blocks change / Bouts relationship? • Step 3: F-test • [(RSSS-RSSL)/(pj)]/[RSSL/(n-p-1)] • pj = # extra parameters in larger vs. smaller model • p = number of covariates in larger model • RSSL/(n-p-1) = residual variance estimate (larger model) (2) (5)

  35. General F-testingIs there evidence of nonlinearity in the Blocks change / Bouts relationship? • Step 3: F-test • [(RSSS-RSSL)/(pj)]/[RSSL/(n-p-1)] = [(13949-13802)/2]/[13802/411] = [147/2]/[13802/411] = 73.5/33.6 = 2.19 Compare to F2,411(.95) = 3.02; is less – do not reject!

  36. Summary • Little evidence of relationship between boxing exposure and subsequent longitudinal decline or improvement in visuo-spatial ability as measured by the Blocks score • More work to elucidate longitudinal relationship between exposure accrual and changes in ability is needed

More Related