Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Mixed-effects beta regression for modeling continuous bounded outcome scores using NONMEM when data are not on the boundaries

  • Short Report
  • Published:
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Beta regression models have been recommended for continuous bounded outcome scores that are often collected in clinical studies. Implementing beta regression in NONMEM presents difficulties since it does not provide gamma functions required by the beta distribution density function. The objective of the study was to implement mixed-effects beta regression models in NONMEM using Nemes’ approximation to the gamma function and to evaluate the performance of the NONMEM implementation of mixed-effects beta regression in comparison to the commonly used SAS approach. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to simulate continuous outcomes within an interval of (0, 70) based on a beta regression model in the context of Alzheimer’s disease. Six samples per subject over a 3 years period were simulated at 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, and 3 years. One thousand trials were simulated and each trial had 250 subjects. The simulation–reestimation exercise indicated that the NONMEM implementation using Laplace and Nemes’ approximations provided only slightly higher bias and relative RMSE (RRMSE) compared to the commonly used SAS approach with adaptive Gaussian quadrature and built-in gamma functions, i.e., the difference in bias and RRMSE for fixed-effect parameters, random effects on intercept, and the precision parameter were <1–3 %, while the difference in the random effects on the slope was <3–7 % under the studied simulation conditions. The mixed-effect beta regression model described the disease progression for the cognitive component of the Alzheimer’s disease assessment scale from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative study. In conclusion, with Nemes’ approximation of the gamma function, NONMEM provided comparable estimates to those from SAS for both fixed and random-effect parameters. In addition, the NONMEM run time for the mixed beta regression models appeared to be much shorter compared to SAS, i.e., 1–2 versus 20–40 s for the model and data used in the manuscript.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Frisoni GB, Caroli A (2007) Neuroimaging outcomes for clinical trials. J Nutr Health Aging 11(4):348–352

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gelinas I et al (1999) Development of a functional measure for persons with Alzheimer’s disease: the disability assessment for dementia. Am J Occup Ther 53(5):471–481

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Swearingen CJ et al (2011) Modeling percentage outcomes: the % Beta_Regression macro. SAS® global forum proceedings, Paper 335, pp 1–12

  4. Cribari-Neto F, Zeileis A (2010) Beta regression in R. J Stat Softw 34(2):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ferrari SP, Cribari-Neto F (2004) Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions. J Appl Stat 31(7):799–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Smithson M, Verkuilen J (2006) A better lemon squeezer? maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychol Methods 11(1):54–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rogers JA et al (2011) A longitudinal dose–response model for the progression of Alzheimers disease, based on a combination of summary-level and patient-level data. In: 4th annual bayesian biostatistics conference, Houston

  8. Rogers JA et al (2012) Combining patient-level and summary-level data for Alzheimer’s disease modeling and simulation: a beta regression meta-analysis. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 39(5):479–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Verkuilen J, Smithson M (2012) Mixed and mixture regression models for continuous bounded responses using the beta distribution. J Educ Behav Stat 37(1):82–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nemes G (2010) New asymptotic expansion for the gamma function. Arch Math 95(2):161–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pregibon D (1980) Goodness of link tests for generalized linear models. Appl Stat 29(1):15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen KF, Wu JW (1994) Testing goodness of fit for a parametric family of link functions. J Am Stat Assoc 89(426):657–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, monographs on statistics and applied probability, vol 37, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, New York, p 511

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nemes G (2008) New asymptotic expansion for the gamma function. http://dx.doi.org/10.3247/sl2math08.005

  15. Samtani MN et al (2012) An improved model for disease progression in patients from the Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative. J Clin Pharmacol 52(5):629–644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ito K et al (2010) Disease progression meta-analysis model in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 6(1):39–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ito K et al (2011) Disease progression model for cognitive deterioration from Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative database. Alzheimers Dement 7(2):151–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Espinheira PL, Ferrari SLP, Cribari-Neto F (2008) On beta regression residuals. J Appl Stat 35(4):407–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Karlsson MO, Holford N, (2008) A tutorial on visual predictive checks,p 17, Abstr 1434 [www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1434], PAGE

  20. Ospina R, Ferrari SP (2010) Inflated beta distributions. Stat Pap 51:111–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ospina R, Ferrari SP (2012) A general class of zero-or-one inflated beta regression models. Comput Stat Data Anal 56(6):1609–1623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hutmacher MM et al (2012) Estimating transformations for repeated measures modeling of continuous bounded outcome data. Stat Med 30(9):935–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ito K, Hutmacher MM, Corrigan BW (2012) Modeling of functional assessment questionnaire (FAQ) as continuous bounded data from the ADNI database. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 39(6):601–618

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Molas M, Lesaffre E (2008) A comparison of three random effects approaches to analyze repeated bounded outcome scores with an application in a stroke revalidation study. Stat Med 27(30):6612–6633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hu C et al (2011) Bounded outcome score modeling: application to treating psoriasis with ustekinumab. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 38(4):497–517

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (1995) Approximations to the log-likelihood function in the nonlinear mixed-effects model. J Comput Graph Stat 4(1):12–35

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

All authors are employees of Janssen Research & Development. Steven Xu is an adjunct assistant professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. Data collection and sharing for this project was funded by the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (National Institutes of Health Grant U01 AG024904). ADNI is funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and through generous contributions from the following: Abbott; Alzheimer’s Association; Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation; Amorfix Life Sciences Ltd.; AstraZeneca; Bayer HealthCare; BioClinica, Inc.; Biogen Idec Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Eisai Inc.; Elan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and its affiliated company Genentech, Inc.; GE Healthcare; Innogenetics, N.V.; IXICO Ltd.; Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC.; Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC.; Medpace, Inc.; Merck & Co., Inc.; Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; Servier; Synarc Inc.; and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is providing funds to support ADNI clinical sites in Canada. Private sector contributions are facilitated by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (www.fnih.org). The grantee organization is the Northern California Institute for Research and Education, and the study is coordinated by the Alzheimer’s disease Cooperative Study at the University of California, San Diego. ADNI data are disseminated by the Laboratory for Neuro Imaging at the University of California, Los Angeles. This research was also supported by NIH Grants P30 AG010129 and K01 AG030514.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xu Steven Xu.

Additional information

The Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative—Data used in preparation of this article were obtained from the Alzheimer’s disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database (adni.loni.ucla.edu). As such, the investigators within the ADNI contributed to the design and implementation of ADNI and/or provided data but did not participate in analysis or writing of this report. A complete listing of ADNI investigators can be found at: http://adni.loni.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/how_to_apply/ADNI_Acknowledgement_List.pdf

Electronic supplementary material

10928_2013_9318_MOESM1_ESM.ppt

Supplementary Fig. 1. Histograms for the simulated data from a randomly selected simulation at different times when the precision parameter for the mixed-effects beta regression (τ) was set to 3 (1a), 5 (1b), and 7 (1c)

Supplementary material 2 (PPT 107 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (PPT 106 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 2. Histograms for the ADAS-cog scores from the patients with Alzheimer’s Disease in the ADNI study

Appendix

Appendix

A sample NONMEM code for the mixed effects beta regression model for the ADNI data is presented.

Code

Comments

$PROB beta regression

; Data specification

$INPUT

$DATA ADNI.csv

 

$PRED

; Mean model

B0 = THETA(1) + ETA(1)

B1 = THETA(2) + ETA(2)

; Define parameters for baseline and slope

LINP = B0 + B1 * TIME

MU = EXP(LINP)/(1 + EXP(LINP))

; Linear predictor on logit scale

; Conditional mean by anti-logit transforming the linear predictor

LTAU = THETA(3)

TAU = EXP(LTAU)

; precision parameter

 

; specify the log likelihood based on the density function for beta distribution (Eq. 2 )

X1 = TAU

X2 = MU * TAU

X3 = (1−MU) * TAU

 

LG1 = 0.5 * (LOG(2 * 3.1415) − LOG(X1)) + X1 * (LOG(X1) − 1) + (5/4) * X1 * (LOG (1 + (1/(15 * X1 * 2))))

LG2 = 0.5 * (LOG(2  * 3.1415) − LOG(X2)) + X2 * (LOG(X2) − 1) + (5/4) * X2 * (LOG (1 + (1/(15 * X2 * 2))))

LG3 = 0.5 * (LOG(2 * 3.1415) − LOG(X3)) + X3 * (LOG(X3) − 1) + (5/4) * X3 * (LOG (1 +  (1/(15 * X3 * 2))))

; Approximation of the log(gamma) function (Eq. 4 )

; The first part of the log likelihood, 0.5 * (LOG(2 * 3.1415), can be omitted if computation of full likelihood is not required.

; Log Likelihood of the beta distribution (Eq. 2 )

LOGL = LG1 − LG2 − LG3 + (MU * TAU−1) * LOG(DV) + ((1−MU) * TAU−1) * LOG(1−DV)

Y = −2 * LOGL

 

SOR = (DV − MU)/SQRT(MU * (1−MU)/(1 + TAU))

; Pearson residuals (standardized ordinary residuals)

$THETA

; specify initial values

$OMEGA

 

$EST MAX = 9999 PRINT = 5 METHOD = COND − 2LOGLIK LAPLACIAN NOABORT

$COV PRINT = E MATRIX = R

$TABLE

; estimation step

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Xu, X.S., Samtani, M.N., Dunne, A. et al. Mixed-effects beta regression for modeling continuous bounded outcome scores using NONMEM when data are not on the boundaries. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 40, 537–544 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-013-9318-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-013-9318-0

Keywords

Navigation