Confidence Interval of the Difference of Two Independent Binomial Proportions Using Weighted Profile Likelihood

Interval estimation of the difference of two independent binomial proportions is an important problem in many applied settings. Newcombe (1998 Newcombe , R. G. ( 1998 ). Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of seven methods . Statistics in Medicine 17 : 873 – 890 .[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) compared the performance of several existing asymptotic methods, and based on the results obtained, recommended a method known as Wilson's method, a modified version of a method originally proposed for single binomial proportion. In this article, we propose a method based on profile likelihood, where the likelihood is weighted by noninformative Jeffrey' prior. By doing extensive simulations, we find that the proposed method performs well compared to Wilson's method. A SAS/IML program implementing this method is also given with this article.     

Testing the Difference of Two Binomial Proportions: Comparison of Continuity Corrections for Saddlepoint Approximation

We carried out a simulation study based on the methodology of Newcombe (1998 Newcombe , R. G. ( 1998 ). Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods . Statist. Med. 17 : 873 – 890 .[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) to compare tests for the difference of two binomial proportions by applying different continuity corrections on saddlepoint approximation to tail probabilities. In this article, we proposed a new continuity correction based on the least common multiple of two sample sizes. We evaluated that the best test should have the actual Type I error rates that are, on the whole, closest to α, but not exceeding α, where α is nominal level of significance.     

Revisiting Beal's Confidence Intervals for the Difference of Two Binomial Proportions

Confidence interval construction for the difference of two independent binomial proportions is a well-known problem with a full panoply of proposed solutions. In this paper, we focus largely on the family of intervals proposed by Beal (1987 Beal , S. ( 1987 ). Asymptotic confidence intervals for the difference between two binomial parameters for use with small samples . Biometrics 43 : 941 – 950 . [CSA] [CROSSREF] [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). This family, which includes the Haldane and Jeffreys–Perks intervals as special cases, assumes a symmetric prior distribution for the population proportions p ₁ and p ₂. We propose new methods that allow the currently observed data to set the prior distribution by taking a parametric empirical-Bayes approach; in addition, we also provide an investigation of the new interval' behaviors in small-sample situations. Unlike other solutions, our intervals can be used adaptively for experiments conducted in multiple stages over time. We illustrate this notion using data from an Argentinean study involving the Mal Rio Cuarto virus and its transmission to susceptible maize crops.     

Approximate and Fiducial Confidence Intervals for the Difference Between Two Binomial Proportions

The problem of estimating the difference between two binomial proportions is considered. Closed-form approximate confidence intervals (CIs) and a fiducial CI for the difference between proportions are proposed. The approximate CIs are simple to compute, and they perform better than the classical Wald CI in terms of coverage probabilities and precision. Numerical studies indicate that these approximate CIs can be used safely for practical applications under a simple condition. The fiducial CI is more accurate than the approximate CIs in terms of coverage probabilities. The fiducial CIs, the Newcombe CIs, and the Miettinen–Nurminen CIs are comparable in terms of coverage probabilities and precision. The interval estimation procedures are illustrated using two examples.     

Sample Size Requirements for the Back-of-the-Envelope Binomial Confidence Interval

The simplest approximate confidence interval for the binomial parameter p, based on x successes in n trials, is

where c is a suitable percentile of the normal distribution. Because I ₀ is so useful in introductory teaching and for back-of-the-envelope calculation, it is desirable to have guidelines for deciding when it provides a good answer. (It is clearly unwise to use I ₀ when x is too near 0 or n.) This article proposes such guidelines, based on the criterion that I ₀ should differ from the exact Clopper-Pearson confidence interval by an amount that is small compared to the length of the interval.     

Bayesian Confidence Interval for the Difference of Two Proportions in the Matched-Paired Design

This article studies the construction of Bayesian confidence interval for the difference of two proportions in the matched-pair design, and applies it to the equiva-lence or non inferiority test. Under the Dirichlet prior distribution, the exact posterior distribution of difference of two proportions is derived. The tail confidence interval and the highest posterior density (HPD) interval are studied, and their frequentist performance are investigated by simulation in terms of the mean coverage probability of interval. Our results suggest to use tail interval at Jeffreys prior for testing equivalence or non inferiority in matched-pair design.     

Confidence Intervals for Survival Probabilities: A Comparison Study

The confidence interval of the Kaplan–Meier estimate of the survival probability at a fixed time point is often constructed by the Greenwood formula. This normal approximation-based method can be looked as a Wald type confidence interval for a binomial proportion, the survival probability, using the “effective” sample size defined by Cutler and Ederer. Wald-type binomial confidence interval has been shown to perform poorly comparing to other methods. We choose three methods of binomial confidence intervals for the construction of confidence interval for survival probability: Wilson's method, Agresti–Coull's method, and higher-order asymptotic likelihood method. The methods of “effective” sample size proposed by Peto et al. and Dorey and Korn are also considered. The Greenwood formula is far from satisfactory, while confidence intervals based on the three methods of binomial proportion using Cutler and Ederer's “effective” sample size have much better performance.     

一种简单有效的二项分布比例参数似然比置信区间的求法

对二项分布比例参数p的似然比置信区间,提出一种简便求解方法。在平均覆盖率、平均区间长度及区间长度的95%置信区间准则下与WScore、Plus4、Jeffreys置信区间进行模拟比较。试验表明,在二项分布b(n,p)的参数n≥20且p∈(0.1,0.9)时,该方法获取的似然比置信区间性能优良。当点估计p值不是接近于0或1且n≥20时,推荐使用本方法获取p的置信区间。     

两个正态分布变异系数差与商的近似置信区间

变异系数是衡量产品质量稳定性的一个重要指标,在实际应用中经常需要研究两种不同环境下变异系数的差异问题。文章在大样本场合给出了两个正态分布变异系数的差与商的近似置信区间、单侧近似置信下限与单侧近似置信上限的计算公式,这些公式计算简单,仅依赖于两个样本变异系数及样本容量,且Monte-Carlo模拟结果表明可以达到给出的置信水平。同时,通过几个算例可以为方法的应用提供参考。     

Bayesian Confidence Interval for the Ratio of Marginal Probabilities in the Matched-Pair Design

This article studies the construction of a Bayesian confidence interval for the ratio of marginal probabilities in matched-pair designs. Under a Dirichlet prior distribution, the exact posterior distribution of the ratio is derived. The tail confidence interval and the highest posterior density (HPD) interval are studied, and their frequentist performances are investigated by simulation in terms of mean coverage probability and mean expected length of the interval. An advantage of Bayesian confidence interval is that it is always well defined for any data structure and has shorter mean expected width. We also find that the Bayesian tail interval at Jeffreys prior performs as well as or better than the frequentist confidence intervals.     

Confidence Intervals for the Weighted Sum of Two Independent Binomial Proportions

Confidence intervals for the difference of two binomial proportions are well known, however, confidence intervals for the weighted sum of two binomial proportions are less studied. We develop and compare seven methods for constructing confidence intervals for the weighted sum of two independent binomial proportions. The interval estimates are constructed by inverting the Wald test, the score test and the Likelihood ratio test. The weights can be negative, so our results generalize those for the difference between two independent proportions. We provide a numerical study that shows that these confidence intervals based on large‐sample approximations perform very well, even when a relatively small amount of data is available. The intervals based on the inversion of the score test showed the best performance. Finally, we show that as for the difference of two binomial proportions, adding four pseudo‐outcomes to the Wald interval for the weighted sum of two binomial proportions improves its coverage significantly, and we provide a justification for this correction.     

A Note on the Estimation of Binomial Probabilities

I am concerned with the admissibility under quadratic loss of certain estimators of binomial probabilities. The minimum variance unbiased estimator is shown to be admissible for Pr(X = 0) and Pr(X = n), but it is inadmissible for Pr(X = k), where 0 < k < n. An example is given of an admissible maximum likelihood estimator (MLE). It is conjectured that the MLE is always admissible.     

Interval Estimation for the Difference of Two Independent Variances

Analytical methods for interval estimation of differences between variances have not been described. A simple analytical method is given for interval estimation of the difference between variances of two independent samples. It is shown, using simulations, that confidence intervals generated with this method have close to nominal coverage even when sample sizes are small and unequal and observations are highly skewed and leptokurtic, provided the difference in variances is not very large. The method is also adapted for testing the hypothesis of no difference between variances. The test is robust but slightly less powerful than Bonett's test with small samples.     

Confidence Intervals for Difference Between Two Poisson Rates

In this article, we develop four explicit asymptotic two-sided confidence intervals for the difference between two Poisson rates via a hybrid method. The basic idea of the proposed method is to estimate or recover the variances of the two Poisson rate estimates, which are required for constructing the confidence interval for the rate difference, from the confidence limits for the two individual Poisson rates. The basic building blocks of the approach are reliable confidence limits for the two individual Poisson rates. Four confidence interval estimators that have explicit solutions and good coverage levels are employed: the first normal with continuity correction, Rao score, Freeman and Tukey, and Jeffreys confidence intervals. Using simulation studies, we examine the performance of the four hybrid confidence intervals and compare them with three existing confidence intervals: the non-informative prior Bayes confidence interval, the t confidence interval based on Satterthwait's degrees of freedom, and the Bayes confidence interval based on Student's t confidence coefficient. Simulation results show that the proposed hybrid Freeman and Tukey, and the hybrid Jeffreys confidence intervals can be highly recommended because they outperform the others in terms of coverage probabilities and widths. The other methods tend to be too conservative and produce wider confidence intervals. The application of these confidence intervals are illustrated with three real data sets.     

Simultaneous Confidence Intervals for the Difference of Two Survival Functions

In comparing two treatments with failure time observations, confidence bands for the "difference" of two survival curves provide useful information about a global picture of the treatment difference over time. In this note, we propose a rather simple procedure for constructing such simultaneous confidence intervals. Our technique can also be used in the one-sample case, which has been extensively studied in the literature.     

Improved Confidence Statements for the Binomial Parameter

In the computation of two-sided confidence intervals for the binomial parameter p (using the binomial mass function), it is known that such intervals achieve a confidence coefficient that in general is not equal to the confidence level 1 – α, say. In this article we present some general results on the confidence coefficient and tabulate them for selected pairs (α, n = number of trials). We treat only the nominal equal tail probability case because it is the most commonly taught and used.     

Confidence Bands for Comparison of Transition Probabilities in a Markov Chain Model

We consider graphs, confidence procedures and tests that can be used to compare transition probabilities in a Markov chain model with intensities specified by a Cox proportional hazard model. Under assumptions of this model, the regression coefficients provide information about the relative risks of covariates in one–step transitions, however, they cannot in general be used to to assess whether or not the covariates have a beneficial or detrimental effect on the endpoint events. To alleviate this problem, we consider graphical tests based on confidence procedures for a generalized Q–Q plot and for the difference between transition probabilities. The procedures are illustrated using data of the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry.     

基于梯度统计量的逆抽样下风险差的置信区间构建

通过逆抽样过程获得的分布又称为负二项分布,在流行病学研究和二分类变量分布的研究中应用极为广泛。因此,提出两种基于梯度统计量的逆抽样下风险差的置信区间的构建方法,分别依据风险差的极大似然估计(MLE)和方差最小无偏一致估计量(UMVUE)。与现有的WALD方法和得分方法相比,该方法所构建置信区间的优点在于:置信区间构建方法既不需要计算Fisher信息阵也不需要计算其逆矩阵,可使计算得以大大简化;对所提出的基于梯度统计量的置信区间构建方法进行蒙特卡洛模拟研究,模拟结果表明提出的构建方法可以得到很好的覆盖概率和较短的区间宽度。     

On an Asymptotic Theory of Conditional and Unconditional Coverage Probabilities of Empirical Bayes Confidence Intervals

Empirical Bayes (EB) methodology is now widely used in statistics. However, construction of EB confidence intervals is still very limited. Following Cox (1975 ), Hill (1990 ) and Carlin & Gelfand (1990 , 1991 ), we consider EB confidence intervals, which are adjusted so that the actual coverage probabilities asymptotically meet the target coverage probabilities up to the second order. We consider both unconditional and conditional coverage, conditioning being done with respect to an ancillary statistic.     

Confidence Bands for the Difference of Two Survival Curves Under Proportional Hazards Model

A common approach to testing for differences between the survival rates of two therapies is to use a proportional hazards regression model which allows for an adjustment of the two survival functions for any imbalance in prognostic factors in the comparison. When the relative risk of one treatment to the other is not constant over time the question of which therapy has a survival advantage is difficult to determine from the Cox model. An alternative approach to this problem is to plot the difference between the two predicted survival functions with a confidence band that provides information about when these two treatments differ. Such a band will depend on the covariate values of a given patient. In this paper we show how to construct a confidence band for the difference of two survival functions based on the proportional hazards model. A simulation approach is used to generate the bands. This approach is used to compare the survival probabilities of chemotherapy and allogeneic bone marrow transplants for chronic leukemia.