Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36534895›Full record

ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2024

A transformation perspective on marginal and conditional models.

Luisa Barbanti, Torsten Hothorn

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Luisa BarbantiInstitut für Epidemiologie, Biostatistik und Prävention, Universität Zürich, Hirschengraben 84, CH-8001 Zürich, Switzerland.
Torsten HothornInstitut für Epidemiologie, Biostatistik und Prävention, Universität Zürich, Hirschengraben 84, CH-8001 Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8301-0471

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation 200021_184603
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clustered observations are ubiquitous in controlled and observational studies and arise naturally in multicenter trials or longitudinal surveys. We present a novel model for the analysis of clustered observations where the marginal distributions are described by a linear transformation model and the correlations by a joint multivariate normal distribution. The joint model provides an analytic formula for the marginal distribution. Owing to the richness of transformation models, the techniques are applicable to any type of response variable, including bounded, skewed, binary, ordinal, or survival responses. We demonstrate how the common normal assumption for reaction times can be relaxed in the sleep deprivation benchmark data set and report marginal odds ratios for the notoriously difficult toe nail data. We furthermore discuss the analysis of two clinical trials aiming at the estimation of marginal treatment effects. In the first trial, pain was repeatedly assessed on a bounded visual analog scale and marginal proportional-odds models are presented. The second trial reported disease-free survival in rectal cancer patients, where the marginal hazard ratio from Weibull and Cox models is of special interest. An empirical evaluation compares the performance of the novel approach to general estimation equations for binary responses and to conditional mixed-effects models for continuous responses. An implementation is available in the tram add-on package to the R system and was benchmarked against established models in the literature.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalClinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationHumansLinear ModelsLongitudinal StudiesOdds RatioProportional Hazards ModelsCategorical data analysisConditional mixed modelsMarginal modelsMarginal predictive distributionsSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID36534895
PMCPMC11212492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.