Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods

The Korean Statistical Society (한국통계학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Bayesian joint model for continuous and zero-inflated count data in developmental toxicity studies

  • Received : 2021.09.17
  • Accepted : 2021.11.07
  • Published : 2022.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In many applications, we frequently encounter correlated multiple outcomes measured on the same subject. Joint modeling of such multiple outcomes can improve efficiency of inference compared to independent modeling. For instance, in developmental toxicity studies, fetal weight and number of malformed pups are measured on the pregnant dams exposed to different levels of a toxic substance, in which the association between such outcomes should be taken into account in the model. The number of malformations may possibly have many zeros, which should be analyzed via zero-inflated count models. Motivated by applications in developmental toxicity studies, we propose a Bayesian joint modeling framework for continuous and count outcomes with excess zeros. In our model, zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) regression model would be used to describe count data, and a subject-specific random effects would account for the correlation across the two outcomes. We implement a Bayesian approach using MCMC procedure with data augmentation method and adaptive rejection sampling. We apply our proposed model to dose-response analysis in a developmental toxicity study to estimate the benchmark dose in a risk assessment.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the Chung-Ang University Research Grants in 2019, and Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (NRF-2019R1C1C1011710).

References

  1. Catalano PJ and Ryan LM (1992). Bivariate latent variable models for clustered discrete and continuous outcomes, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87, 651-658. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1992.10475264
  2. Celeux G, Forbes F, Robert CP, and Titterington DM (2006). Deviance information criterion for missing data models, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 651-674. https://doi.org/10.1214/06-BA122
  3. Chip S and Greenberg E (1995). Understanding the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, The American Statistician, 49, 327-335. https://doi.org/10.2307/2684568
  4. Crump KS (1995). Calculation of benchmark doses from continuous data, Risk Analysis, 15, 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00095.x
  5. Dagne GA (2004). Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of correlated zero-inflated count data, Biometrical Journal, 46, 653-663. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200310077
  6. Dunson DB (2000). Bayesian latent variable models for clustered mixed outcomes, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 62, 355-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00236
  7. Dunson DB, Chen Z, and Harry JA (2003). A Bayesian approach for joint modeling of cluster size and subunit-specific outcomes, Biometrics, 59, 521-530. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0420.00062
  8. Dunson DB and Herring AH (2005). Bayesian latent variable models for mixed discrete outcomes, Biostatistics, 6, 11-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxh025
  9. Fronczyk K and Kottas A (2017). Risk assessment for toxicity experiments with discrete and continuous outcomes: A Bayesian nonparametric approach, Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 22, 585-601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13253-017-0293-6
  10. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, and Rubin DB (2014). Bayesian Data Analysis, CRC Press, New York.
  11. Ghosh SK, Mukhopadhyay P, and Lu J-C (2006). Bayesian analysis of zero-inflated regression models, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 136, 1360-1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2004.10.008
  12. Gilks WR and Wild P (1992). Adaptive rejection sampling for Gibbs sampling, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 41, 337-348.
  13. Hall DB (2000). Zero-inflated Poisson and binomial regression with random effects: A case study, Biometrics, 56, 1030-1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.01030.x
  14. Hardy A, Benford D, Halldorsson T, et al. (2017). Update: use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment, European Food Safety Authority Journal, 15, 1-41.
  15. Hwang BS and Pennell ML (2014). Semiparametric Bayesian joint modeling of a binary and continuous outcome with applications in toxicological risk assessment, Statistics in Medicine, 33, 1162-1175. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6007
  16. Hwang BS and Pennell ML (2018). Semiparametric Bayesian joint modeling of clustered binary and continuous outcomes with informative cluster size in developmental toxicity assessment, Environmetrics, 29, 1-15.
  17. Jensen SM, Kluxen FM, and Ritz C (2019). A review of recent advances in benchmark dose methodology, Risk Analysis, 39, 2295-2315. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13324
  18. Jensen SM, Kluxen FM, Streibig JC, Cedergreen N, and Ritz C (2020). bmd: an R package for benchmark dose estimation, Peer J, 8, 1-25.
  19. KassahunW, Neyens T, Molenberghs G, Faes C, and Verbeke G (2015). A joint model for hierarchical continuous and zero-inflated overdispersed count data, Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 85, 552-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/00949655.2013.829058
  20. Lambert D (1992). Zero-inflated Poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing, Technometrics, 34, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1269547
  21. Lee K, Joo Y, Song JJ, and Harper DW (2011). Analysis of zero-inflated clustered count data: A marginalized model approach, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 55, 824-837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2010.07.005
  22. Liu H and Powers DA (2007). Growth curve models for zero-inflated count data: an application to smoking behavior, Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 247-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510709336746
  23. McCulloch C (2008). Joint modelling of mixed outcome types using latent variables, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 17, 53-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280207081240
  24. Min Y and Agresti A (2005). Random effect models for repeated measures of zero-inflated count data, Statistical Modeling, 5, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1191/1471082X05st084oa
  25. Mullahy J (1986). Specification and testing of some modified count data models, Journal of Econometrics, 33, 341-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(86)90002-3
  26. Neelon BH (2019). Bayesian zero-inflated negative binomial regression based on Polya-Gamma mixtures, Bayesian Analysis, 14, 829-855. https://doi.org/10.1214/18-BA1132
  27. Neelon BH, O'Malley AJ, and Normand SLT (2010). A Bayesian model for repeated measures zeroinflated count data with application to outpatient psychiatric service use, Statistical Modelling, 10, 421-439. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471082X0901000404
  28. R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org
  29. Regan, MM and Catalano PJ (1999). Likelihood models for clustered binary and continuous outcomes: application to developmental toxicology, Biometrics, 55, 760-768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.00760.x
  30. Rodrigues J (2003). Bayesian analysis of zero-inflated distributions, Communications in Statistics- Theory and Methods, 32, 281-289. https://doi.org/10.1081/STA-120018186
  31. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, and Van Der Linde A (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 64, 583-639. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00353
  32. US Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance, OECD, Washington, D.C.
  33. Yau KK and Lee AH (2001). Zero-inflated Poisson regression with random effects to evaluate an occupational injury prevention programme, Statistics in Medicine, 20, 2907-2920. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.860