0% found this document useful (0 votes)
9 views6 pages

Medical Statistics Analysis Tasks

description

Uploaded by

Karim Gamal Ali
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
9 views6 pages

Medical Statistics Analysis Tasks

description

Uploaded by

Karim Gamal Ali
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Exercise 1

KLMED8004: Medical Statistics, Part 1

John Zobolas (Ioannis Zompolas)


PhD Candidate, Department of Biology
September 2018

Task 1 & Task 2


See: exe01 Tasks1and2 [Link] (or the .html file of the produced
report)

Task 3
Problems 3.136-3.140
The sample size in this cardiovascular disease study is https : //[Link]/project/5b8d4be42273
446. Below is Table 3.22 where the association between the blood-pressure index
(AAI) and the S-T segment depression of the electrocardiogram (ECG) is shown:
S-T segment depression
+ -
AAI < 1.0 20 95
AAI ≥ 1.0 13 318
Since AAI < 1.0 signifies a test-positive for heart disease while the golden stan-
dard for the same disease is the positive (+) S-T segment depression, we have that:
T P = 20, F N = 13, F P = 95, T N = 318. So, the positives and negatives are:
P = T P + F N = 33, N = T N + F P = 413. Thus we can calculate:
TP 20
Sensitivity = = = 0.6
P 33
TN 318
Specif icity = = = 0.77
N 413
Since the subjects in the study are a random sample from Japan’s population, we can
calculate the disease prevalence as:
P 33
x = P (P ositives) = = = 0.074
N 446
1
So, the predictive value positive and predictive value negative can be calculated
as:
Sensitivity · x
PV + = =
Sensitivity · x + (1 − Specif icity) · (1 − x)
0.6 · 0.074
= = 0.17
0.6 · 0.074 + (1 − 0.77)(1 − 0.074)
Specif icity · (1 − x)
PV − = =
Specif icity · (1 − x) + (1 − Sensitivity) · x
0.77 · (1 − 0.074)
= = 0.96
0.77 · (1 − 0.074) + (1 − 0.6) · 0.074

These results show that the AAI test is not a good indicator of heart disease since
the P V + is very small, meaning that we are only 17% sure that a person has heart
disease given that his test resulted in: AAI ≤ 1.0. Even with better technology for
testing the AAI index and given that the sensitivity thus increased to let’s say 0.8,
we would still have a low positive predictive value: P V + (Sensitivity = 0.8) = 22%.

Problems 3.12-3.15
We are considering a family with two parents and two children. Let the events of
interest be: A1 ={mother has the influenza}, A2 ={father has the influenza}, A3 ={the
first child has the influenza} and A4 ={the second child has the influenza}. It is given
that: P (A1 ) = P (A2 ) = 0.1, P (A1 ∩ A2 ) = 0.02 and that: P (A3 ) = P (A4 ) =
0.2, P (A3 ∩ A4 ) = 0.1.
• Are the events A1 , A2 independent? No, since:
P (A1 ) · P (A2 ) = 0.01 6= P (A1 ∩ A2 ) = 0.02

• What is the probability that at least one child will get the influenza?
P (A3 ∪ A4 ) = P (A3 ) + P (A4 ) − P (A3 ∩ A4 ) = 0.2 + 0.2 − 0.1 = 0.3 = 30%

• What is the conditional probability that the father has the influenza given that the
mother has influenza?
P (A1 ∩ A2 ) 0.02
P (A2 |A1 ) = = = 20%
P (A1 ) 0.1

• What is the conditional probability that the father has the influenza given that the
mother does not have influenza?
P (A1 ∩ A2 ) P (A2 ) − P (A1 ∩ A2 ) 0.1 − 0.02
P (A2 |A1 ) = = = = 8.8%
P (A1 ) 1 − P (A1 ) 1 − 0.1
Note: The above results make perfect sense since they show that it is more
probable for the father to have influenza given that his wife also has.

2
Task 4
Problems 3.76-3.78
In this hypertension study, the measurement is the change in blood pressure be-
fore and after a stimulating experience. There is strong cardiovascular reactivity if:
∆DBP ≥ 10 mm Hg. In the next Table 3.11, we can see the classification of the
cardiovascular reactivity using an automated as well as a manual sphygmomanometer:
∆DBP , manual
∆DBP , automated < 10 ≥ 10
< 10 51 7
≥ 10 15 6
It’s easy to see that the sample size is N = 51 + 7 + 15 + 6 = 79. Now, since
the automated measurements signify the test-positives for cardiovascular reactivity
whereas the manual measurements are considered the ”true” measurements, we have
that: T P = 6, F N = 7, F P = 15, T N = 51. So, the positives and negatives are:
P = T P + F N = 13, N = T N + F P = 66. Thus we can calculate:
TP 6
Sensitivity = = = 0.46
P 13

TN 51
Specif icity = = = 0.77
N 66
Since the population tested is representative of the general population, we can calcu-
late the disease prevalence as:
P 13
x = P (P ositives) = = = 0.164
N 79
So, the predictive value positive and predictive value negative can be calculated
as:
Sensitivity · x
PV + = =
Sensitivity · x + (1 − Specif icity) · (1 − x)
0.46 · 0.164
= = 0.28
0.46 · 0.164 + (1 − 0.77)(1 − 0.164)
Specif icity · (1 − x)
PV − = =
Specif icity · (1 − x) + (1 − Sensitivity) · x
0.77 · (1 − 0.164)
= = 0.88
0.77 · (1 − 0.164) + (1 − 0.46) · 0.164

3
Task 5
Problems 4.5-4.6
Selecting k = 5 out of n = 50 cases of angina, when order matters, is:

N = 50 · 49 · 48 · 47 · 46

If the order of selection does not matter, then:


! !
0 n 50 50!
N = = =
k 5 5! · 45!

Task 6
Problems 4.1-4.3
X is a random variable representing then number of hypertensive adults (HT) in
a family (mother and father). We consider someone as having HT, if their blood
pressure is: DBP ≥ 90. It is given that the events A={mother is HT} and B={father
is HT} are independent and the probabilities are: P (A) = 0.1, P (B) = 0.2. So,
we can calculate the probability of both of them being HT as: P (A ∩ B) = P (A) ·
P (B) = 0.1 · 0.2 = 0.02 and the probability of at least one of them being HT as:
P (A ∪ B) = P (A) + P (B) − P (A ∩ B) = 0.28.
We will now derive the probability mass function (pmf) of the random variable
X. The possible values are 0, 1 and 2 representing that none is HT in the family,
only one is or that both of the adults are. Using the next Venn diagram it’s easy to
calculate the probabilities needed:

A B

• P (X = 0) = 1 − P (A ∪ B) = 1 − 0.28 = 0.72

• P (X = 1) = P (A ∪ B) − P (A ∩ B) = 0.28 − 0.02 = 0.26

• P (X = 2) = P (A ∩ B) = 0.02

So, the pmf can be described with the next table:

k 0 1 2
P (X = k) 0.72 0.26 0.02

4
Next, we can calculate the expected value and variance:
2
X
µ = E(X) = kP (X = k) = 0.3
k=0

2
σ 2 = V ar(X) = k 2 P (X = k) − µ2 = 0.25
X

k=0

Task 7
Problems 4.9-4.10
In this problem, we have k = 6 out of n = 15 students in a grade-school class that
developed influenza (40% of them were affected by the disease). The probability that
you will get influenza nationwide is p = 0.2 = 20%. Does this means that there is an
excessive number of infected students in that class?

Let X be a random variable representing the number of students that have influenza
(in that class). We will use the binomial distribution where each independent
trial asks a student if he/she has the influenza with probability p = 0.2. Our initial
hypothesis here is that this class is representative of the natiowide population and
as such, these excessive cases of influenzas are not worrying. We will calculate the
probability of having at least 6 students with influenza:
15
!
15
0.2k · (1 − 0.2)15−k
X
P (X ≥ 6) =
k=6 k

We will use the R function: pbinom(k, size, prob) = P (X ≤ k|size = n, prob = p)


for ease of calculation. So: P (X ≥ 6) = 1 − P (X ≤ 5) = 1 − pbinom(5, size =
15, prob = 0.2) ≈ 0.061 = 6%, which is larger than the standard significance level
of 5%, indicating thus that the results are not statistically significant and there is
no need to worry about the excessive number of infected students (we accept the
initial hypothesis).
The expected number of infected students is given by the expected value of the
binomial distribution: µ = E(X) = n · p = 15 · 0.2 = 3 students.

Task 8
Problems 4.89-4.91
Let X be a random variable that represents the number of admissions to the Emer-
gency Room (which follows the Poisson distribution). The rate of admissions is
on average λ1 = 2 admissions/day if it is a weekday and λ2 = 1 admission/day if it is

5
a weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). We will use the next two R functions for ease
of calculation:
λk · e−λ
dpois(k, λ) = P (X = k) =
k!
k
X λn · e−λ
ppois(k, λ) = P (X ≤ k) =
n=0 n!

• What is the probability of at least one admission on a Wednesday?

P (X ≥ 1|W ednesday) = 1 − P (X = 0|W ednesday) =

= 1 − dpois(0, lambda = 2) = 0.86 = 86%

• What is the probability of at least one admission on a Saturday?

P (X ≥ 1|Saturday) = 1 − P (X = 0|Saturday) =

= 1 − dpois(0, lambda = 1) = 0.63 = 63%


So, the probability of getting at least one admission is greater on a weekday
which makes sense, since the average rate of admissions/day is twice as much
compared to a weekend day.

• What is the probability of having 0, 1 and 2+ admissions for an entire week, if the
results for different days during the week are assumed to be independent?

Since we have λ1 = 2 admissions/day if it is a weekday and λ2 = 1 admis-


sion/day if it is a weekend day, we expect that we will have λ1 ∗ 5 + λ2 ∗ 2 = 12
admissions/week, since the results are independent for each day. So:

P (X = 0|all week) = P (X = 0|λ = 12) = 6.144212 · 10−6

P (X = 1|all week) = P (X = 1|λ = 12) = 7.373055 · 10−5

P (X ≥ 2|all week) = 1 − [P (X = 0|all week) + P (X = 1|all week)] =


0.9999201 ' 99.99%

Common questions

Powered by AI

Independence between events simplifies probability calculations because the joint probability of independent events is the product of their probabilities. In the hypertension example, the events of the mother (A) and father (B) being hypertensive are independent, allowing the calculation of both being hypertensive as P(A ∩B) = P(A) * P(B) = 0.02 . This independence allows straightforward multiplications rather than complex conditional adjustments, demonstrating its utility in simplifying multivariate probability assessments.

In probability, two events are independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of the other. This is demonstrated in the example where the mother's (A1) and father's (A2) influenza events are not independent because P(A1) * P(A2) ≠ P(A1 ∩ A2); specifically, P(A1) * P(A2) = 0.01 is not equal to the joint probability of both having influenza, which is 0.02 . This suggests the likelihood that one parent has influenza affects the probability of the other contracting it, indicating some dependence.

The binomial distribution models the number of successes in a fixed number of independent trials, each with the same probability of success. In the classroom example, where 6 out of 15 students developed influenza, each student contracting influenza is a 'success' with probability 0.2. Calculating P(X ≥6) using the cumulative distribution function indicates a less than 5% significance, implying the occurrences are not statistically exceptional . This supports the conclusion that the infection rate in this classroom is consistent with general population statistics, negating any extraordinary concern.

The significance level helps assess whether observed data significantly deviates from expectations under the null hypothesis. In this document, the analysis calculated the probability of observing at least 6 influenza cases in a class of 15, given that the nationwide infection probability is 20%. The calculated probability (6%) exceeded the typical 5% significance level, suggesting the observed cases are not statistically significant . This implies there's no sufficient evidence to claim the number of cases is unusually high, supporting the initial hypothesis that the class is representative of the general population.

A probability mass function (pmf) provides the probabilities of discrete outcomes for a random variable. In the context of hypertensive individuals in a family, it details the likelihood of different counts of hypertensive individuals (0, 1, or 2). The pmf was calculated as P(X = 0) = 0.72, P(X = 1) = 0.26, and P(X = 2) = 0.02, providing a comprehensive view of the distribution . This analysis aids in understanding how common it is for none, one, or both parents in a household to have hypertension, informing potential risk and decision-making processes.

Disease prevalence is crucial in determining the predictive values of a test. It reflects the proportion of the population with the disease. Predictive values, such as the positive predictive value (PV+) and negative predictive value (PV-), are influenced by prevalence; a higher prevalence typically increases PV+ and decreases PV-. In the cardiovascular disease study, the prevalence was 7.4% . This low prevalence is a primary reason for the low PV+ of 17% and a high PV- of 96%, indicating the test is better at confirming the absence of disease rather than its presence.

Prevalence is calculated by dividing the number of positive cases (both true positives and false negatives) by the total sample size. In the cardiovascular reactivity study, with 13 positives out of 79 participants, the prevalence is 0.164 . This measure indicates how common the condition is within the studied group and reflects that this sample is fairly representative of the general population prevalence, suggesting reasonable generalizability of findings from this sample to the broader population.

Sensitivity and specificity are key metrics for assessing diagnostic test performance. Sensitivity measures the test's ability to correctly identify those with the disease (true positives), while specificity measures the capacity to correctly identify those without the disease (true negatives). For the AAI test, sensitivity is 0.6, indicating a moderate ability to detect heart disease when it is present, and specificity is 0.77, which provides a fairly reliable measure for correctly identifying those without the disease . Despite reasonable specificity, the low PPV suggests challenges in accurately identifying disease cases, likely due to low pre-test probability or disease prevalence.

A low positive predictive value (PPV) implies that the test is not very reliable in confirming the presence of a disease; in this case, the AAI test for heart disease has a PPV of only 17%, meaning that out of all people who test positive, only 17% actually have the disease . Even with improved technology, if the sensitivity of the AAI test were increased to 0.8, the PPV would only rise slightly to 22% . This suggests that enhancing sensitivity alone might not substantially improve the test's predictive reliability without addressing specificity or selecting a more indicative test.

The Poisson distribution applies to predicting events that occur independently over a fixed period. It is suitable for modeling emergency room admissions as these events are typically random, occur with a known constant mean rate, and can happen any number of times in a given time frame. For weekdays, the mean number of admissions is 2, and for weekends, it is 1 . This approach allows calculation of probabilities for various counts of admissions, such as the probability of at least one admission on specific days, demonstrating its applicability to real-world daily admission predictions in hospitals.

You might also like