臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

生物醫學研究領域中，當新的藥物或疾病檢測方法提出時，欲了解新的方法是否有相同的治療效果或是不比標準方法差，因此進行等效性或非劣性檢定之評估。為了減少受試者間異質性影響了評估結果，所以可使用成對設計。但成對設計引入的相關性使模型配適變得困難。
本文提出利用強韌概似函數方法來進行成對設計下之等效性與非劣性檢定。此強韌檢定法是將兩個獨立的伯努利概似函數強韌化，得到強韌分數檢定統計量。本文利用模擬和實例分析來展示強韌分數檢定統計量做等效性與非劣性檢定的表現，且將Lu and Bean (1995) 提出的華德 (Wald) 檢定統計量，以及Nam (1997) 基於受限制之最大概似估計建立的檢定統計量來與我們的新方法比較。

In medical research, when a new drug or disease detection method is proposed, the equivalence or non-inferiority test is conducted to evaluate whether the new method has the same therapeutic effect, or whether the new method is no worse than the standard method.
In this thesis, we propose testing the equivalence and non-inferiority using the robust likelihood function method for paired data. We derive the robust test statistic from the likelihood function constructed by adjusting two independent Bernoulli likelihoods. Via simulations and real data analysis, we demonstrate the performance of our robust procedures for testing equivalence and non-inferiority. We also compare our method to the Wald test statistic proposed by Lu and Bean (1995) and the restricted maximum likelihood estimate test statistic proposed by Nam (1997).

目錄
摘要 i
Abstract ii
致謝辭 iii
目錄 v
表目錄 vii
第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻回顧 4
2.1 WALD檢定統計量之信賴區間 4
2.2 RMLE檢定統計量之信賴區間 8
第三章 兩個獨立伯努利模型之強韌化 10
3.1 最大概似估計量 10
3.2 實作模型之費雪訊息矩陣 11
3.3 分數函數的變異數矩陣 13
3.4 參數 之強韌分數統計量 16
第四章 模擬研究 18
4.1 資料生成方式 18
4.2 推算信賴區間之方法 19
4.2.1 WALD檢定統計量之信賴區間 21
4.2.2 RMLE檢定統計量之信賴區間 22
4.3 模擬結果 23
第五章 實例分析 53
第六章 結論 65
參考文獻 66

Lu, Y. and Bean J. A. (1995). On the sample size for one-sided equivalence of sensitivities based upon McNemar’s test. Statistics in Medicine, 14(16): 1831–1839.
Liu, J. P., Hsueh, H. M., Hsueh, E. and Chen J. J. (2002). Tests for equivalence or non-inferiority for paired binary data. Statistics in Medicine, 21(2): 231-245.
McNemar, Q. (1947). Note on the sampling error of the differences between corrected proportions and percentages. Psychometrika, 12(2): 153–157.
McCray, G., Titman, A. C., Ghaneh, P. and Lancaster, G. (2017). Sample size re-estimation in paired comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with a binary response. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17(1): 102.
Nam, J. (1997). Establishing equivalence of two treatments and sample size requirements in matched-pairs design. Biometrics, 53(4): 1422–1430.
Royall, R. M. and Tsou, T. S. (2003). Interpreting statistical evidence by using imperfect models: robust adjusted likelihood functions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 65(2): 391-404.
Rufibach, K. (2011). Assessment of paired binary data. Skeletal Radiology, 40(1): 1–4.
Zhou, X. H. and Qin, G. (2005). A new confidence interval for the difference between two binomial proportions of paired data. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 128(2): 527–542.