<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: zero-inflated longitudinal data in Statistical Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/zero-inflated-longitudinal-data/m-p/211507#M11441</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can the longitudinal data be separated into "phases" of some kind, i.e., is there a natural reason for the counts to go to zero?&amp;nbsp; If so, then split those off, and note that the groups differ due to whatever that reason is--no p value needed.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A second possibility is to fit a heteroscedastic model, assuming a normal distribution for the errors.&amp;nbsp; The p values may be off some, but if the differences are striking, they should still be detectable.&amp;nbsp; The write up would have to acknowledge that the assumptions may not be appropriate.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A third possibility is to consider each time point as a binomial response--either a count could be made or not.&amp;nbsp; Although I generally dislike dichotomizing data, this opens a couple of venues--a survival analysis time-to-repeated no count with right censoring, or a repeated measures binomial.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And number four (not my choice but it could be done).&amp;nbsp; Analyze each time point separately, collect all the p values and apply some sort of false discovery rate adjustment.&amp;nbsp; This totally misses the correlation structure but has been done for microarray data, where the measures aren't longitudinal but are certainly correlated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Good luck with this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Steve Denham&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:26:08 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-07-27T12:26:08Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>zero-inflated longitudinal data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/zero-inflated-longitudinal-data/m-p/211506#M11440</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have longitudinal data for three groups of subjects. The data are count data ranging from zero to millions. I have zero-inflated data and complete separation. Certain groups have values of exact zero from a particalr timepoint onwards. &lt;SPAN style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px;"&gt;The data looks better when log transformed, but then I have zero-inflated continuous data&lt;/SPAN&gt; that I could fit with the tweedie distribution , but this is however not implemented for longitudinal data (neither are the zip or zinb models). The firth correction is also not available in a longitudinal setting. Can somebody give me some advice where to begin? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for any suggestion,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Veron&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2015 07:33:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/zero-inflated-longitudinal-data/m-p/211506#M11440</guid>
      <dc:creator>vstorme</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-07-27T07:33:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: zero-inflated longitudinal data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/zero-inflated-longitudinal-data/m-p/211507#M11441</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can the longitudinal data be separated into "phases" of some kind, i.e., is there a natural reason for the counts to go to zero?&amp;nbsp; If so, then split those off, and note that the groups differ due to whatever that reason is--no p value needed.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A second possibility is to fit a heteroscedastic model, assuming a normal distribution for the errors.&amp;nbsp; The p values may be off some, but if the differences are striking, they should still be detectable.&amp;nbsp; The write up would have to acknowledge that the assumptions may not be appropriate.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A third possibility is to consider each time point as a binomial response--either a count could be made or not.&amp;nbsp; Although I generally dislike dichotomizing data, this opens a couple of venues--a survival analysis time-to-repeated no count with right censoring, or a repeated measures binomial.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And number four (not my choice but it could be done).&amp;nbsp; Analyze each time point separately, collect all the p values and apply some sort of false discovery rate adjustment.&amp;nbsp; This totally misses the correlation structure but has been done for microarray data, where the measures aren't longitudinal but are certainly correlated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Good luck with this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Steve Denham&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:26:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/zero-inflated-longitudinal-data/m-p/211507#M11441</guid>
      <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-07-27T12:26:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: zero-inflated longitudinal data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/zero-inflated-longitudinal-data/m-p/211508#M11442</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Steve,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think I'll stick to the first option, that is what I did so far but I wasn't sure whether that would be ok enough. The counts drop to zero due to a particular treatment. I converted the zero values to 1 and I fitted a GEE with a lognormal distribution. With this, it is feasible to do simulations as well. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:53:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/zero-inflated-longitudinal-data/m-p/211508#M11442</guid>
      <dc:creator>vstorme</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-07-27T12:53:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: zero-inflated longitudinal data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/zero-inflated-longitudinal-data/m-p/211509#M11443</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://support.sas.com/kb/44354"&gt;This note&lt;/A&gt; on zero-inflated models includes showing how to fit such models using PROC NLMIXED.&amp;nbsp; If you fit the model in that procedure, you could include a RANDOM statement to deal with longitudinal data.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:08:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/zero-inflated-longitudinal-data/m-p/211509#M11443</guid>
      <dc:creator>StatDave</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-07-27T17:08:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: zero-inflated longitudinal data</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/zero-inflated-longitudinal-data/m-p/211510#M11444</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;A _jive_internal="true" class="jiveTT-hover-user jive-username-link" data-avatarid="-1" data-externalid="" data-presence="null" data-userid="178104" data-username="lvm" href="https://communities.sas.com/people/lvm" id="jive-17810453464889437993186"&gt;lvm&lt;/A&gt; &lt;/STRONG&gt;has posted some really good things regarding adding a constant to values, and then using lognormal and gamma distributions, and what might go wrong.&amp;nbsp; I know I have been doing that for quite a lot of things.&amp;nbsp; However, PROC GENMOD does provide zero-inflated techniques for Poisson and negative binomial distributions--I just don't know if it will accept GEE (REPEATED) syntax.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Steve Denham&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:17:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/zero-inflated-longitudinal-data/m-p/211510#M11444</guid>
      <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-07-28T12:17:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

