Local influence diagnostics for hierarchical count data models with overdispersion and excess zeros

被引:8
|
作者
Rakhmawati, Trias Wahyuni [1 ]
Molenberghs, Geert [1 ,2 ]
Verbeke, Geert [1 ,2 ]
Faes, Christel [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hasselt, I BioStat, Martelarenlaan 42, B-3500 Hasselt, Belgium
[2] Katholieke Univ Leuven, I BioStat, Kapucijnenvoer 35, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
关键词
Combined model; Excess zero; Hurdle model; Local influence; Overdispersion; Poisson-normal model; Zero-inflated model; LINEAR MIXED MODELS; INFLATED POISSON REGRESSION;
D O I
10.1002/bimj.201500162
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
We consider models for hierarchical count data, subject to overdispersion and/or excess zeros. Molenberghs etal. () and Molenberghs etal. () extend the Poisson-normal generalized linear-mixed model by including gamma random effects to accommodate overdispersion. Excess zeros are handled using either a zero-inflation or a hurdle component. These models were studied by Kassahun etal. (). While flexible, they are quite elaborate in parametric specification and therefore model assessment is imperative. We derive local influence measures to detect and examine influential subjects, that is subjects who have undue influence on either the fit of the model as a whole, or on specific important sub-vectors of the parameter vector. The latter include the fixed effects for the Poisson and for the excess-zeros components, the variance components for the normal random effects, and the parameters describing gamma random effects, included to accommodate overdispersion. Interpretable influence components are derived. The method is applied to data from a longitudinal clinical trial involving patients with epileptic seizures. Even though the data were extensively analyzed in earlier work, the insight gained from the proposed diagnostics, statistically and clinically, is considerable. Possibly, a small but important subgroup of patients has been identified.
引用
收藏
页码:1390 / 1408
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A general averaging method for count data with overdispersion and/or excess zeros in biomedicine
    Liu, Yin
    Zhou, Jianghong
    Chen, Zhanshou
    Zhang, Xinyu
    [J]. STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2023, 32 (05) : 904 - 926
  • [2] Heterogeneity, excess zeros, and the structure of count data models
    Mullahy, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECONOMETRICS, 1997, 12 (03) : 337 - 350
  • [3] Local influence diagnostics for generalized linear mixed models with overdispersion
    Rakhmawati, Trias Wahyuni
    Molenberghs, Geert
    Verbeke, Geert
    Faes, Christel
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED STATISTICS, 2017, 44 (04) : 620 - 641
  • [4] Modelling Healthcare Demand Count Data with Excessive Zeros and Overdispersion
    Park, Myung Hyun
    Kim, Joseph H. T.
    [J]. GLOBAL ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2021, 50 (04) : 358 - 381
  • [5] Regression models for count data with excess zeros: A comparison using survey data
    Bhaskar, Adhin
    Thennarasu, K.
    Philip, Mariamma
    Jaisoorya, T. S.
    [J]. QUANTITATIVE METHODS FOR PSYCHOLOGY, 2023, 19 (01): : 11 - 13
  • [6] Excess zeros in count models for recreational trips
    Gurmu, S
    Trivedi, PK
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & ECONOMIC STATISTICS, 1996, 14 (04) : 469 - 477
  • [7] Network analysis for count data with excess zeros
    Hosik Choi
    Jungsoo Gim
    Sungho Won
    You Jin Kim
    Sunghoon Kwon
    Changyi Park
    [J]. BMC Genetics, 18
  • [8] Network analysis for count data with excess zeros
    Choi, Hosik
    Gim, Jungsoo
    Won, Sungho
    Kim, You Jin
    Kwon, Sunghoon
    Park, Changyi
    [J]. BMC GENETICS, 2017, 18
  • [9] Distribution-free models for longitudinal count responses with overdispersion and structural zeros
    Yu, Q.
    Chen, R.
    Tang, W.
    He, H.
    Gallop, R.
    Crits-Christoph, P.
    Hu, J.
    Tu, X. M.
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2013, 32 (14) : 2390 - 2405
  • [10] Random effects regression models for count data with excess zeros in caries research
    Todem, D.
    Zhang, Y.
    Ismail, A.
    Sohn, W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED STATISTICS, 2010, 37 (10) : 1661 - 1679