IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i19p3656-d934403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Joint Models for Incomplete Longitudinal Data and Time-to-Event Data

Author

Listed:
  • Yuriko Takeda

    (Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama City University, Yokohama 236-0004, Japan)

  • Toshihiro Misumi

    (Department of Biostatistics, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama 236-0004, Japan)

  • Kouji Yamamoto

    (Department of Biostatistics, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama 236-0004, Japan)

Abstract

Clinical studies often collect longitudinal and time-to-event data for each subject. Joint modeling is a powerful methodology for evaluating the association between these data. The existing models, however, have not sufficiently addressed the problem of missing data, which are commonly encountered in longitudinal studies. In this paper, we introduce a novel joint model with shared random effects for incomplete longitudinal data and time-to-event data. Our proposed joint model consists of three submodels: a linear mixed model for the longitudinal data, a Cox proportional hazard model for the time-to-event data, and a Cox proportional hazard model for the time-to-dropout from the study. By simultaneously estimating the parameters included in these submodels, the biases of estimators are expected to decrease under two missing scenarios. We estimated the proposed model by Bayesian approach, and the performance of our method was evaluated through Monte Carlo simulation studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuriko Takeda & Toshihiro Misumi & Kouji Yamamoto, 2022. "Joint Models for Incomplete Longitudinal Data and Time-to-Event Data," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-7, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:19:p:3656-:d:934403
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/19/3656/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/19/3656/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geert Molenberghs & Caroline Beunckens & Cristina Sotto & Michael G. Kenward, 2008. "Every missingness not at random model has a missingness at random counterpart with equal fit," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(2), pages 371-388, April.
    2. Christos Thomadakis & Loukia Meligkotsidou & Nikos Pantazis & Giota Touloumi, 2019. "Longitudinal and time‐to‐drop‐out joint models can lead to seriously biased estimates when the drop‐out mechanism is at random," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 58-68, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yekun Qin & Shanminhui Yin & Fang Liu, 2024. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Navigating Criminal Responsibility in the Digital Marketplace: Implications of Network-Neutral Help Behavior and Beyond-5G Networks in E-Commerce Transactions," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 10667-10695, September.
    2. Shu Xu & Shelley A. Blozis, 2011. "Sensitivity Analysis of Mixed Models for Incomplete Longitudinal Data," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 36(2), pages 237-256, April.
    3. Bian, Yuan & Yi, Grace Y. & He, Wenqing, 2024. "A unified framework of analyzing missing data and variable selection using regularized likelihood," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    4. Kott Phillip S. & Liao Dan, 2018. "Calibration Weighting for Nonresponse with Proxy Frame Variables (So that Unit Nonresponse Can Be Not Missing at Random)," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(1), pages 107-120, March.
    5. Marco Doretti & Sara Geneletti & Elena Stanghellini, 2018. "Missing Data: A Unified Taxonomy Guided by Conditional Independence," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 86(2), pages 189-204, August.
    6. Heyna, Philipp, 2024. "Can TikTok Drive Support for Populist Radical Right Parties? Causal Evidence From Germany," OSF Preprints yju9n, Center for Open Science.
    7. Hairu Wang & Zhiping Lu & Yukun Liu, 2023. "Score test for missing at random or not under logistic missingness models," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 1268-1279, June.
    8. Andrew T. Karl & Yan Yang & Sharon L. Lohr, 2013. "A Correlated Random Effects Model for Nonignorable Missing Data in Value-Added Assessment of Teacher Effects," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 38(6), pages 577-603, December.
    9. Rianne Margaretha Schouten & Gerko Vink, 2021. "The Dance of the Mechanisms: How Observed Information Influences the Validity of Missingness Assumptions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(3), pages 1243-1258, August.
    10. Daniel, Rhian M. & Kenward, Michael G., 2012. "A method for increasing the robustness of multiple imputation," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 1624-1643.
    11. Janicki, Ryan & Malec, Donald, 2013. "A Bayesian model averaging approach to analyzing categorical data with nonignorable nonresponse," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 600-614.
    12. Marie du Roy de Chaumaray & Matthieu Marbac, 2023. "Clustering data with non-ignorable missingness using semi-parametric mixture models assuming independence within components," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 17(4), pages 1081-1122, December.
    13. Yuan, Ke-Hai, 2009. "Normal distribution based pseudo ML for missing data: With applications to mean and covariance structure analysis," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 100(9), pages 1900-1918, October.
    14. Margarita Moreno-Betancur & Grégoire Rey & Aurélien Latouche, 2015. "Direct likelihood inference and sensitivity analysis for competing risks regression with missing causes of failure," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(2), pages 498-507, June.
    15. Roula Tsonaka & Dimitris Rizopoulos & Geert Verbeke & Emmanuel Lesaffre, 2010. "Nonignorable Models for Intermittently Missing Categorical Longitudinal Responses," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 834-844, September.
    16. Trias Wahyuni Rakhmawati & Geert Molenberghs & Geert Verbeke & Christel Faes, 2016. "Local influence diagnostics for incomplete overdispersed longitudinal counts," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(9), pages 1722-1737, July.
    17. Maria Marino & Marco Alfó, 2015. "Latent drop-out based transitions in linear quantile hidden Markov models for longitudinal responses with attrition," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 9(4), pages 483-502, December.
    18. Bunouf, Pierre & Molenberghs, Geert & Grouin, Jean-Marie & Thijs, Herbert, 2015. "A SAS Program Combining R Functionalities to Implement Pattern-Mixture Models," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 68(i08).
    19. Edward F. Vonesh & Tom Greene, 2022. "Biased estimation with shared parameter models in the presence of competing dropout mechanisms," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 399-406, March.
    20. Christos Thomadakis & Loukia Meligkotsidou & Nikos Pantazis & Giota Touloumi, 2019. "Longitudinal and time‐to‐drop‐out joint models can lead to seriously biased estimates when the drop‐out mechanism is at random," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 58-68, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:19:p:3656-:d:934403. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.