Accuracy of Asymptotic Interval Estimation Methods for Comparing Two Risks
Accuracy of Asymptotic Interval Estimation Methods for Comparing Two Risks
复制标题
比较两种风险的渐近区间估计方法的准确性
DOI：
10.1002/bimj.4710320210
复制
发表时间：
1990
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Nurminen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Nurminen;T. Nurminen
1985年，Miettinen和Nurminen提出了基于渐近似然的风险差异、风险比和风险比区间估计方法。在本研究中，使用小样本中的模拟覆盖概率，通过与通常的区间估计进行比较，确定了非分层数据的所有三种拟议区间估计的实际可信系数。与95%的覆盖概率相比，使用受限最大似然估计器的似然方法准确地达到了名义水平。推荐的限制还为两个尾巴分配了相当相等的错误率。惯常的间歇训练则不太成功。对于简单的风险差异，估计的置信度概率未能达到95%的水平。对于对数变换风险的差异，各可信区间的尾概率被不同地分配，并且该方法有时是不可计算的。由于Logit转换风险的差异，与基于似然比的区间相比，未经修正的Woolf区间有时容易出错，而且有些保守。修改保守的玉米田风险-赔率比限制，极大地提高了基于似然计分的程序的准确性。对于稀疏分层数据，似然计分方法产生了风险-赔率比的有偏估计，对于匹配对，它等于精确的、条件最大似然估计的平方。
In 1985, Miettinen and Nurminen proposed asymptotic likelihood-based methods for the interval estimation of risk differences, risk ratios and risk-odds ratios. In the present study, with the use of simulated coverage probabilities in small samples, the actual confidence coefficients of all three of the proposed interval estimates for unstratified data were determined in a comparison with the usual ones. Rated against the 95% coverage probability, the likelihood methods that use restricted maximum likelihood estimators accurately attained the nominal level. The recommended limits also apportioned fairly equal error rates for both tails. The customary intervals performed less successfully. For simple risk differences the estimated confidence probabilities failed to reach the 95% level. For the differences in log-transformed risks, the tail probabilities of the confidence intervals were disparately allocated, and the method was occasionally incomputable. For the difference in logit-transformed risks, the uncorrected Woolf intervals were at times fallible and somewhat conservative in comparison to the likelihood ratio-based intervals. Modification of the conservative Cornfield limits for the risk-odds ratio greatly improved the accuracy of the likelihood score-based procedure. With sparse-stratified data the likelihood score approach produced a biased estimate of the risk-odds ratio, which for matched pairs equals the square of the exact, conditional maximum likelihood estimate.