[R-meta] 回复: R-sig-meta-analysis Digest, Vol 85, Issue 4

One additional point (leaving aside the issue what the appropriate model for these data is):

rma.mv(yi, vi, V=V_mat, ...)

doesn't make sense. The second unnamed argument ('vi') will be matched to the third argument of rma.mv(), which is argument 'W' for the weights. So you are setting the weights equal to 'vi', which indeed will give more weight to the less precise estimates. Generally, you don't want to manually specify weights (especially in more complex models where there can be an entire weight matrix) unless you really know what you are doing.

Best,
Wolfgang

-----Original Message-----
From: R-sig-meta-analysis<r-sig-meta-analysis-bounces at r-project.org>  On Behalf
Of James Pustejovsky via R-sig-meta-analysis
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 15:22
To:pedrosac at staff.uni-marburg.de; R Special Interest Group for Meta-Analysis
<r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org>
Cc: James Pustejovsky<jepusto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [R-meta] Inverse weighting after estimation of VCOV

Hi David,

Thanks for clarifying your data structure. Based on what you've described,
I don't think it makes sense to use vcalc(). The point of vcalc() is to
build in covariance between the sampling errors of the effect size
estimates. For your one publication that reports 8 studies, each effect
size estimate is based on a separate sample of participants (because each
estimate comes from a different country). So there's no reason to expect
that there would be covariance in the sampling errors.

Instead, one might suspect that there would be covariance between the
country-specific effect size parameters (i.e., the "true" effect sizes)
from this publication. This would be plausible if the same operational
procedures (e.g., same recruitment approach, same measurement
instrumentation, same follow-up window) were used across the samples in
this publication. The conventional way to model this would be to 1) specify
effect size estimates as independent but 2) include publication-level
random effects in the model to capture shared operational variance within
publications. The syntax would be something like:
res_metaRE <- rma(
   yi, V = vi,
   random = ~ 1 | publicationID / number,
   mods = ~ hospitalbeds + ltcbeds,
   verbose=TRUE,
   data=df_complete, sparse = TRUE
)
You'll need to create a publicationID variable if you don't already have
that on the data.

The difficulty with this approach in your case is that there's only one
publication that has multiple samples nested within it, so there's not a
lot of information available to parse out the variance at the publication
level from the variance at the sample level (across countries). You could
try using the model fit statistics to compare the model above versus a
model that only has random effects at the sample level.

James

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 8:54?AM David Pedrosa via R-sig-meta-analysis <
r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org> wrote:

Hi James,

apologies, my question was not  seasoned enough.

I have a dataframe with 16 studies, all of which provide some odds
ratios for hospitalisation. 8 studies are from the same publication but
on different countries. To me there is still reason to believe they
?share more variance? than the rest. Besides, I want to weigh the total
number  of subjects from each of the studies. To make it a bit more
complex, we have digged out the miner of hospital beds and long term
beds for every country, both of which we consider potential moderators.
I ran the random effects model

res_metaRE <- rma(yi, vi,
   random = ~ 1 | number, mods = ~ hospitalbeds +
ltcbeds, verbose=TRUE, data=df_complete)

to which weights(res_metaRE) provides accurate results. If I try to
estimate the VCOV matrix, the results show correct diagonal values, that
is identical to df_conplete$vi. But sticking the resulting V_mat

V_mat <- vcalc(vi=vi, cluster=shared_variance, data=df_complete, rho=.7)

to rma.mv provides results that are too high but especially the studies
with lower number of subjects are higher weighted. I am assuming that
it?s just somehow inverted but I cannot understand if I?m missing
something or if there is some other mistake in the way I?m estimating
the VCOV. Number is just the study id.

I?m not entirely sure I understand your point with the subsection of the
matrix.

Thanks for your help!
Best,
David

P.S.: Here are the relevant parts of df_complete

structure(list(number = c(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15), author = c("Aamodt", "Ceylan", "Krause", "Kumar",
"Moens, Belgium", "Moens, France"Moens, Italy", "Moens, Canada",
"Moens, Mexiko", "Moens, New Zeeland", "Moens, Spain", "Moens, South
Corea",
"Moens, Czech Rep.", "Moens, Hungary", "Moens, USA"), year = c(2023,
2022, 2021, 2021, 2015, 2015, 2015, 2015, 2015, 2015, 2015, 2015,
2015, 2015, 2015), n_ges = c(53279, 27, 40, 346141, 837, 4599,
4034, 1381, 1062, 202, 352, 1565, 92, 241, 20065), OR = c(1.06,
1.43, 8.25, 1.454, 2.3, 1.5, 1.4, 1.7, 0.95, 1.97, 1.09, 0.95,
0.97, 1.44, 1.4), hospitalbeds = c(2.77, 3.02, 7.76, 2.77, 5.47,
5.65, 3.12, 2.58, 1, 2.57, 2.96, 12.77, 6.66, 6.79, 2.77), ltcbeds =
c(32.3,
9.5, 54.2, 53.9, 66.8, 47.4, 21.3, 46.7, 0, 50.4, 43.4, 25, 34.9,
42.6, 28.9), p_values = c(0.106809128205467, 0.706331045003814,
0.0281267337718951, 0, 2.43772276381116e-05, 2.76746355676653e-22,
1.01260208850919e-05, 1.19251123951374e-10, 0.772759462747246,
0.0741077696800058, 0.74088983860122, 0.68164335922065, 1,
0.183303852299051,
3.20176730771634e-26), shared_variance = c(0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1,
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1), yi = structure(c(0.0582689081239758,
0.357674444271816, 2.11021320034659, 0.374318379111328, 0.832909122935104,
0.405465108108164, 0.336472236621213, 0.53062825106217,
-0.0512932943875506,
0.678033542749897, 0.0861776962410524, -0.0512932943875506,
-0.0304592074847086,
0.364643113587909, 0.336472236621213), ni = c(53279, 27, 40,
346141, 837, 4599, 4034, 1381, 1062, 202, 352, 1565, 92, 241,
20065), measure = "GEN"), vi = c(0.000835840725678602, 0.638632983584221,
0.604067037193667, 0.000435509388232691, 0.0467214213223696,
0.00468347897652763, 0.00538603813506437, 0.0132951153208062,
0.0214123920152818, 0.142112789690683, 0.0489441998392354,
0.0138688993962097,
0.186242249276727, 0.0702159732616764, 0.00133268716433697)), row.names
= c(NA,
-15L), class = c("escalc", "data.frame"), yi.names = "yi", vi.names =
"vi", digits = c(est = 4,
se = 4, test = 4, pval = 4, ci = 4, var = 4, sevar = 4, fit = 4,
het = 4))

Am 24.05.2024 um 19:06 schrieb James Pustejovsky:

Hi David,

I don't entirely understand the models that you're looking at, so
clarifying the following would help in getting good feedback:
* What is the variable `shared_variance` used in the vcalc call?
* What is the variable `number` used in the random effects argument of
rma.mv?
* How are these variables related?

Additionally, it would be good to check that the vcov matrix created
by vcalc() is as you intend it to be. Could you pull out the blocks of
this matrix for a few studies and just verify that they give you
covariance matrices with a correlation of 0.7? I mean something like:
vcov_study_k <- V_mat[i:j, i:j]
cov2cor(vcov_study_k)
where the indices i:j are the rows in your data corresponding to a
given study k.

James

On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 10:00?AM David Pedrosa via R-sig-meta-analysis
<r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org>  wrote:

     Dear all,

     I have a basic question about the output of my (gu)estimation of the
     variance-covariance matrix. I have extracted results from very
     heterogeneous studies with OR as effect size (sample sizes between 20
     and 300,000). Since some of the results come from the same study, I
     decided to try to use the VCOV as an input and estimated values
     according to the following formula

     V_mat  <- vcalc(vi=vi, cluster=shared_variance, data=df_complete,
     rho=.7)
     res_meta     <- rma.mv(yi, vi, V=V_mat,
                              random = ~ 1 | number, mods = ~
     hospitalbeds +
     ltcbeds, verbose=TRUE, data=df_complete)


     Interestingly, in this case the weighting is reversed, so that
     most of
     the weight is given to studies with the smallest sample size;
     something
     that does not happen when using this formula:

     res_meta     <- rma(yi, vi,
                              random = ~ 1 | number, mods = ~
     hospitalbeds +
     ltcbeds, verbose=TRUE, data=df_complete)

     I have tried to understand what is going on, but I am at kind of
     lost.
     Could someone please give me some advice?

     Thanks in advance,

     David