Functional principal component analysis as an alternative to mixed-effect models for describing sparse repeated measures in presence of missing data
Authors:
Corentin Ségalas,
Catherine Helmer,
Robin Genuer,
Cécile Proust-Lima
Abstract:
Analyzing longitudinal data in health studies is challenging due to sparse and error-prone measurements, strong within-individual correlation, missing data and various trajectory shapes. While mixed-effect models (MM) effectively address these challenges, they remain parametric models and may incur computational costs. In contrast, Functional Principal Component Analysis (FPCA) is a non-parametric…
▽ More
Analyzing longitudinal data in health studies is challenging due to sparse and error-prone measurements, strong within-individual correlation, missing data and various trajectory shapes. While mixed-effect models (MM) effectively address these challenges, they remain parametric models and may incur computational costs. In contrast, Functional Principal Component Analysis (FPCA) is a non-parametric approach developed for regular and dense functional data that flexibly describes temporal trajectories at a potentially lower computational cost. This paper presents an empirical simulation study evaluating the behaviour of FPCA with sparse and error-prone repeated measures and its robustness under different missing data schemes in comparison with MM. The results show that FPCA is well-suited in the presence of missing at random data caused by dropout, except in scenarios involving most frequent and systematic dropout. Like MM, FPCA fails under missing not at random mechanism. The FPCA was applied to describe the trajectories of four cognitive functions before clinical dementia and contrast them with those of matched controls in a case-control study nested in a population-based aging cohort. The average cognitive declines of future dementia cases showed a sudden divergence from those of their matched controls with a sharp acceleration 5 to 2.5 years prior to diagnosis.
△ Less
Submitted 10 July, 2024; v1 submitted 16 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
Do machine learning methods lead to similar individualized treatment rules? A comparison study on real data
Authors:
Florie Bouvier,
Etienne Peyrot,
Alan Balendran,
Corentin Ségalas,
Ian Roberts,
François Petit,
Raphaël Porcher
Abstract:
Identifying patients who benefit from a treatment is a key aspect of personalized medicine, which allows the development of individualized treatment rules (ITRs). Many machine learning methods have been proposed to create such rules. However, to what extent the methods lead to similar ITRs, i.e., recommending the same treatment for the same individuals is unclear. In this work, we compared 22 of t…
▽ More
Identifying patients who benefit from a treatment is a key aspect of personalized medicine, which allows the development of individualized treatment rules (ITRs). Many machine learning methods have been proposed to create such rules. However, to what extent the methods lead to similar ITRs, i.e., recommending the same treatment for the same individuals is unclear. In this work, we compared 22 of the most common approaches in two randomized control trials. Two classes of methods can be distinguished. The first class of methods relies on predicting individualized treatment effects from which an ITR is derived by recommending the treatment evaluated to the individuals with a predicted benefit. In the second class, methods directly estimate the ITR without estimating individualized treatment effects. For each trial, the performance of ITRs was assessed by various metrics, and the pairwise agreement between all ITRs was also calculated. Results showed that the ITRs obtained via the different methods generally had considerable disagreements regarding the patients to be treated. A better concordance was found among akin methods. Overall, when evaluating the performance of ITRs in a validation sample, all methods produced ITRs with limited performance, suggesting a high potential for optimism. For non-parametric methods, this optimism was likely due to overfitting. The different methods do not lead to similar ITRs and are therefore not interchangeable. The choice of the method strongly influences for which patients a certain treatment is recommended, drawing some concerns about their practical use.
△ Less
Submitted 30 January, 2024; v1 submitted 7 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
