2008
DOI: 10.1007/s10928-008-9098-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of proportional and differential odds models for mixed-effects analysis of categorical data

Abstract: In this work a model for analyzing categorical data is presented; the differential odds model. Unlike the commonly used proportional odds model, this model does not assume that a covariate affects all categories equally on the log odds scale. The differential odds model was compared to the proportional odds model, by assessing statistical significance and improvement of predictive performance when applying the differential odds model to data previously analyzed using the proportional odds model. Three clinical… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Cumulative probabilities for a score of M categories were modeled according to following equations (18):…”
Section: Modeling Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cumulative probabilities for a score of M categories were modeled according to following equations (18):…”
Section: Modeling Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Q-statistic was used to investigate the degree of heterogeneity between the trials, and a P-value 0.10 for the Q-test indicated a lack of heterogeneity among studies. We used the fixed-effects model and the random-effects model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method (Jose et al, 2008) and the DerSimonian and Laird method (Kjellsson et al, 2008), respectively, to combine values from each of the studies. A sensitivity analysis was also performed by omitting each study in turn to identify potential outliers.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An ordered categorical model was used to describe the data (19,22). The probability for a patient i to obtain a score greater or equal to k is expressed as a function of the latent variable ( , ), where represents the motor, non-motor or tremor subscales.…”
Section: Irt Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%