---
title: "Comparison with other software"
package: mmrm
bibliography: mmrm_review_refs.bib
output:
rmarkdown::html_vignette:
toc: true
toc_depth: 2
vignette: |
%\VignetteEncoding{UTF-8}
%\VignetteIndexEntry{Comparison with other software}
%\VignetteEngine{knitr::rmarkdown}
editor_options:
chunk_output_type: console
markdown:
wrap: 72
---
```{r, include = FALSE}
knitr::opts_chunk$set(
collapse = TRUE, comment = "#>", out.width = "100%",
dpi = 150, fig.path = "mmrm-"
)
```
```{r review-setup, message=FALSE, warning=FALSE, include=FALSE}
library(MASS)
library(clusterGeneration)
library(dplyr)
library(purrr)
library(microbenchmark)
library(stringr)
library(mmrm)
library(lme4)
library(nlme)
library(glmmTMB)
library(sasr)
library(knitr)
library(emmeans)
library(ggplot2)
set.seed(5123)
```
# Introduction
In this vignette we briefly compare the `mmrm::mmrm`, SAS's `PROC GLIMMIX`,
`nlme::gls`, `lme4::lmer`, and `glmmTMB::glmmTMB` functions for fitting mixed
models for repeated measures (MMRMs). A primary difference in these
implementations lies in the covariance structures that are supported "out of the
box". In particular, `PROC GLIMMIX` and `mmrm` are the only procedures which
provide support for many of the most common MMRM covariance structures. Most
covariance structures can be implemented in `gls`, though users are required to
define them manually. `lmer` and `glmmTMB` are more limited. We find that
`mmmrm` converges more quickly than other R implementations while also producing
estimates that are virtually identical to `PROC GLIMMIX`'s.
# Datasets
Two datasets are used to illustrate model fitting with the `mmrm`, `lme4`,
`nlme`, `glmmTMB` R packages as well as `PROC GLIMMIX`. These data are also used
to compare these implementations' operating characteristics.
## FEV Data
The FEV dataset contains measurements of FEV1 (forced expired volume in one
second), a measure of how quickly the lungs can be emptied. Low levels of FEV1
may indicate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It is summarized below.
```
Stratified by ARMCD
Overall PBO TRT
n 800 420 380
USUBJID (%)
PT[1-200] 200 105 (52.5) 95 (47.5)
AVISIT
VIS1 200 105 95
VIS2 200 105 95
VIS3 200 105 95
VIS4 200 105 95
RACE (%)
Asian 280 (35.0) 152 (36.2) 128 (33.7)
Black or African American 300 (37.5) 184 (43.8) 116 (30.5)
White 220 (27.5) 84 (20.0) 136 (35.8)
SEX = Female (%) 424 (53.0) 220 (52.4) 204 (53.7)
FEV1_BL (mean (SD)) 40.19 (9.12) 40.46 (8.84) 39.90 (9.42)
FEV1 (mean (SD)) 42.30 (9.32) 40.24 (8.67) 44.45 (9.51)
WEIGHT (mean (SD)) 0.52 (0.23) 0.52 (0.23) 0.51 (0.23)
VISITN (mean (SD)) 2.50 (1.12) 2.50 (1.12) 2.50 (1.12)
VISITN2 (mean (SD)) -0.02 (1.03) 0.01 (1.07) -0.04 (0.98)
```
## BCVA Data
The BCVA dataset contains data from a randomized longitudinal ophthalmology
trial evaluating the change in baseline corrected visual acuity (BCVA) over the
course of 10 visits. BCVA corresponds to the number of letters read from a
visual acuity chart. A summary of the data is given below:
```
Stratified by ARMCD
Overall CTL TRT
n 8605 4123 4482
USUBJID (%)
PT[1-1000] 1000 494 (49.4) 506 (50.6)
AVISIT
VIS1 983 482 501
VIS2 980 481 499
VIS3 960 471 489
VIS4 946 458 488
VIS5 925 454 471
VIS6 868 410 458
VIS7 816 388 428
VIS8 791 371 420
VIS9 719 327 392
VIS10 617 281 336
RACE (%)
Asian 297 (29.7) 151 (30.6) 146 (28.9)
Black or African American 317 (31.7) 149 (30.1) 168 (33.2)
White 386 (38.6) 194 (39.3) 192 (37.9)
BCVA_BL (mean (SD)) 75.12 (9.93) 74.90 (9.76) 75.40 (10.1)
BCVA_CHG (mean (SD))
VIS1 5.59 (1.31) 5.32 (1.23) 5.86 (1.33)
VIS10 9.18 (2.91) 7.49 (2.58) 10.60 (2.36)
```
# Model Implementations {.tabset}
Listed below are some of the most commonly used covariance structures used when
fitting MMRMs. We indicate which matrices are available "out of the box" for
each implementation considered in this vignette. Note that this table is not
exhaustive; `PROC GLIMMIX` and `glmmTMB` support additional spatial covariance
structures.
| Covariance structures | `mmrm` | `PROC GLIMMIX` | `gls` | `lmer` | `glmmTMB` |
|:---------------------------------:|:------:|:------------:|:-----:|:------:|:---------:|
| Ante-dependence (heterogeneous) | X | X | | | |
| Ante-dependence (homogeneous) | X | | | | |
| Auto-regressive (heterogeneous) | X | X | X | | |
| Auto-regressive (homogeneous) | X | X | X | | X |
| Compound symmetry (heterogeneous) | X | X | X | | X |
| Compound symmetry (homogeneous) | X | X | X | | |
| Spatial exponential | X | X | X | | X |
| Toeplitz (heterogeneous) | X | X | | | X |
| Toeplitz (homogeneous) | X | X | | | |
| Unstructured | X | X | X | X | X |
Code for fitting MMRMs to the FEV data using each of the considered functions
and covariance structures are provided below. Fixed effects for the visit
number, treatment assignment and the interaction between the two are modeled.
## Ante-dependence (heterogeneous)
### `PROC GLIMMIX`
<pre><code>PROC GLIMMIX DATA = fev_data;
CLASS AVISIT(ref = 'VIS1') ARMCD(ref = 'PBO') USUBJID;
MODEL FEV1 = AVISIT|ARMCD / ddfm=satterthwaite solution chisq;
<b>RANDOM AVISIT / subject=USUBJID type=ANTE(1)</b>;
</code></pre>
### `mmrm`
<pre><code>mmrm(
formula = FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>adh(VISITN | USUBJID)</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
## Ante-dependence (homogeneous)
### `mmrm`
<pre><code>mmrm(
formula =FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>ad(VISITN | USUBJID)</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
## Auto-regressive (heterogeneous)
### `PROC GLIMMIX`
<pre><code>PROC GLIMMIX DATA = fev_data;
CLASS AVISIT(ref = 'VIS1') ARMCD(ref = 'PBO') USUBJID;
MODEL FEV1 = AVISIT|ARMCD / ddfm=satterthwaite solution chisq;
<b>RANDOM AVISIT / subject=USUBJID type=ARH(1)</b>;
</code></pre>
### `mmrm`
<pre><code>mmrm(
formula = FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>ar1h(VISITN | USUBJID)</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
### `gls`
<pre><code>gls(
FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT,
data = fev_data,
correlation = <b>corCAR1(form = ~AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
weights = <b>varIdent(form = ~1|AVISIT)</b>,
na.action = na.omit
)
</code></pre>
## Auto-regressive (homogeneous)
### `PROC GLIMMIX`
<pre><code>PROC GLIMMIX DATA = fev_data;
CLASS AVISIT(ref = 'VIS1') ARMCD(ref = 'PBO') USUBJID;
MODEL FEV1 = ARMCD|AVISIT / ddfm=satterthwaite solution chisq;
<b>RANDOM AVISIT / subject=USUBJID type=AR(1)</b>;
</code></pre>
### `mmrm`
<pre><code>mmrm(
formula = FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>ar1(VISITN | USUBJID)</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
### `gls`
<pre><code>gls(
FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT,
data = fev_data,
correlation = <b>corCAR1(form = ~AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
na.action = na.omit
)
</code></pre>
### `glmmTMB`
<pre><code>glmmTMB(
FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>ar1(0 + AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
<b>dispformula = ~ 0</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
## Compound symmetry (heterogeneous)
### `PROC GLIMMIX`
<pre><code>PROC GLIMMIX DATA = fev_data;
CLASS AVISIT(ref = 'VIS1') ARMCD(ref = 'PBO') USUBJID;
MODEL FEV1 = AVISIT|ARMCD / ddfm=satterthwaite solution chisq;
<b>RANDOM AVISIT / subject=USUBJID type=CSH</b>;
</code></pre>
### `mmrm`
<pre><code>mmrm(
formula = FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>csh(VISITN | USUBJID)</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
### `gls`
<pre><code>gls(
FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT,
data = fev_data,
correlation = <b>corCompSymm(form = ~AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
weights = <b>varIdent(form = ~1|AVISIT)</b>,
na.action = na.omit
)
</code></pre>
### `glmmTMB`
<pre><code>glmmTMB(
FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>cs(0 + AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
<b>dispformula = ~ 0</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
## Compound symmetry (homogeneous)
### `PROC GLIMMIX`
<pre><code>PROC GLIMMIX DATA = fev_data;
CLASS AVISIT(ref = 'VIS1') ARMCD(ref = 'PBO') USUBJID;
MODEL FEV1 = AVISIT|ARMCD / ddfm=satterthwaite solution chisq;
<b>RANDOM AVISIT / subject=USUBJID type=CS</b>;
</code></pre>
### `mmrm`
<pre><code>mmrm(
formula = FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>cs(VISITN | USUBJID)</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
### `gls`
<pre><code>gls(
FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT,
data = fev_data,
correlation = <b>corCompSymm(form = ~AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
na.action = na.omit
)
</code></pre>
## Spatial exponential
### `PROC GLIMMIX`
<pre><code>PROC GLIMMIX DATA = fev_data;
CLASS AVISIT(ref = 'VIS1') ARMCD(ref = 'PBO') USUBJID;
MODEL FEV1 = AVISIT|ARMCD / ddfm=satterthwaite solution chisq;
<b>RANDOM / subject=USUBJID type=sp(exp)(visitn)</b> rcorr;
</code></pre>
### `mmrm`
<pre><code>mmrm(
formula = FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>sp_exp(VISITN | USUBJID)</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
### `gls`
<pre><code>gls(
FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT,
data = fev_data,
correlation = <b>corExp(form = ~AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
weights = varIdent(form = ~1|AVISIT),
na.action = na.omit
)
</code></pre>
### `glmmTMB`
<pre><code># NOTE: requires use of coordinates
glmmTMB(
FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>exp(0 + AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
<b>dispformula = ~ 0</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
## Toeplitz (heterogeneous)
### `PROC GLIMMIX`
<pre><code>PROC GLIMMIX DATA = fev_data;
CLASS AVISIT(ref = 'VIS1') ARMCD(ref = 'PBO') USUBJID;
MODEL FEV1 = AVISIT|ARMCD / ddfm=satterthwaite solution chisq;
<b>RANDOM AVISIT / subject=USUBJID type=TOEPH</b>;
</code></pre>
### `mmrm`
<pre><code>mmrm(
formula = FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>toeph(AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
### `glmmTMB`
<pre><code> glmmTMB(
FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>toep(0 + AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
<b>dispformula = ~ 0</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
## Toeplitz (homogeneous)
### `PROC GLIMMIX`
<pre><code>PROC GLIMMIX DATA = fev_data;
CLASS AVISIT(ref = 'VIS1') ARMCD(ref = 'PBO') USUBJID;
MODEL FEV1 = AVISIT|ARMCD / ddfm=satterthwaite solution chisq;
<b>RANDOM AVISIT / subject=USUBJID</b> <b>type=TOEP</b>;
</code></pre>
### `mmrm`
<pre><code>mmrm(
formula = FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>toep(AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
## Unstructured
### `PROC GLIMMIX`
<pre><code>PROC GLIMMIX DATA = fev_data;
CLASS AVISIT(ref = 'VIS1') ARMCD(ref = 'PBO') USUBJID;
MODEL FEV1 = ARMCD|AVISIT / ddfm=satterthwaite solution chisq;
<b>RANDOM AVISIT / subject=USUBJID</b> <b>type=un</b>;
</code></pre>
### `mmrm`
<pre><code>mmrm(
formula = FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>us(AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
### `gls`
<pre><code>gls(
FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT,
data = fev_data,
correlation = <b>corSymm(form = ~AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
weights = varIdent(form = ~1|AVISIT),
na.action = na.omit
)
</code></pre>
### `lmer`
<pre><code>lmer(
FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>(0 + AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
data = fev_data,
control = lmerControl(check.nobs.vs.nRE = "ignore"),
na.action = na.omit
)
</code></pre>
### `glmmTMB`
<pre><code>glmmTMB(
FEV1 ~ ARMCD * AVISIT + <b>us(0 + AVISIT | USUBJID)</b>,
<b>dispformula = ~ 0</b>,
data = fev_data
)
</code></pre>
# Benchmarking
Next, the MMRM fitting procedures are compared using the FEV and BCVA datasets.
FEV1 measurements are modeled as a function of race, treatment arm, visit
number, and the interaction between the treatment arm and the visit number.
Change in BCVA is assumed to be a function of race, baseline BCVA, treatment
arm, visit number, and the treatment--visit interaction. In both datasets,
repeated measures are modeled using an unstructured covariance matrix. The
implementations' convergence times are evaluated first, followed by a comparison
of their estimates. Finally, we fit these procedures on simulated BCVA-like data
to assess the impact of missingness on convergence rates.
## Convergence Times
### FEV Data
The `mmrm`, `PROC GLIMMIX`, `gls`, `lmer`, and `glmmTMB` functions are applied to
the FEV dataset 10 times. The convergence times are recorded for each replicate
and are reported in the table below.
```{r, warning=FALSE, message=FALSE, echo=FALSE}
# format table in markdown
cached_mmrm_results$conv_time_fev %>%
arrange(median) %>%
transmute(
Implementation = expression,
Median = median,
`First Quartile` = lower,
`Third Quartile` = upper
) %>%
knitr::kable(
caption = "Comparison of convergence times: milliseconds", digits = 2
)
```
It is clear from these results that `mmrm` converges significantly faster than
other R functions. Though not demonstrated here, this is generally true
regardless of the sample size and covariance structure used. `mmrm` is faster than
`PROC GLIMMIX`.
### BCVA Data
The MMRM implementations are now applied to the BCVA dataset 10 times. The
convergence times are presented below.
```{r, warning=FALSE, message=FALSE, echo=FALSE}
# format table in markdown
cached_mmrm_results$conv_time_bcva %>%
arrange(median) %>%
transmute(
Implementation = expression,
Median = median,
`First Quartile` = lower,
`Third Quartile` = upper
) %>%
knitr::kable(
caption = "Comparison of convergence times: seconds", digits = 2
)
```
We again find that `mmrm` produces the fastest convergence times on
average.
## Marginal Treatment Effect Estimates Comparison
We next estimate the marginal mean treatment effects for each visit in the FEV
and BCVA datasets using the MMRM fitting procedures. All R implementations'
estimates are reported relative to `PROC GLIMMIX`'s estimates. Convergence status
is also reported.
### FEV Data
```{r review-treatment-fev, echo = FALSE, warning = FALSE, message = FALSE}
# plot estimates
ggplot(
cached_mmrm_results$rel_diff_ests_tbl_fev,
aes(x = parameter, y = rel_diff, color = estimator, shape = converged)
) +
geom_point(position = position_dodge(width = 0.5)) +
geom_hline(yintercept = 0, linetype = 2, alpha = 0.5) +
scale_color_discrete(name = "Procedure") +
scale_shape_discrete(name = "Convergence") +
ylab("Relative Difference") +
xlab("Marginal Treatment Effect") +
ggtitle("Average Treatment Effect Estimates Relative to SAS Estimates") +
theme_classic()
```
The R procedures' estimates are very similar to those output by `PROC GLIMMIX`,
though `mmrm` and `gls` generate the estimates that are closest to those
produced when using SAS. All methods converge using their default optimization
arguments.
### BCVA Data
```{r review-treatment-bcva, echo = FALSE, warning = FALSE, message = FALSE}
# plot estimates
ggplot(
cached_mmrm_results$rel_diff_ests_tbl_bcva,
aes(x = parameter, y = rel_diff, color = estimator, shape = converged)
) +
geom_point(position = position_dodge(width = 0.5)) +
geom_hline(yintercept = 0, linetype = 2, alpha = 0.5) +
scale_color_discrete(name = "Procedure") +
scale_shape_discrete(name = "Convergence") +
ylab("Relative Difference") +
xlab("Marginal Treatment Effect") +
ggtitle("Average Treatment Effect Estimates Relative to SAS Estimates") +
theme_classic()
# excluding glmmTMB
cached_mmrm_results$rel_diff_ests_tbl_bcva %>%
dplyr::filter(estimator != "glmmTMB") %>%
ggplot(
aes(x = parameter, y = rel_diff, color = estimator, shape = converged)
) +
geom_point(position = position_dodge(width = 0.5)) +
geom_hline(yintercept = 0, linetype = 2, alpha = 0.5) +
scale_color_discrete(name = "Procedure") +
scale_shape_discrete(name = "Convergence") +
ylab("Relative Difference") +
xlab("Marginal Treatment Effect") +
ggtitle(
"Average Treatment Effect Estimates Relative to SAS Estimates
(Excluding glmmTMB)"
) +
theme_classic()
```
`mmrm`, `gls` and `lmer` produce estimates that are virtually identical to
`PROC GLIMMIX`'s, while `glmmTMB` does not. This is likely explained by `glmmTMB`'s
failure to converge. Note too that `lmer` fails to converge.
## Impact of Missing Data on Convergence Rates
The results of the previous benchmark suggest that the amount of patients
missing from later time points affect certain implementations' capacity to
converge. We investigate this further by simulating data using a data-generating
process similar to that of the BCVA datasets, though with various rates of
patient dropout.
Ten datasets of 200 patients are generated each of the following levels of
missingness: none, mild, moderate, and high. In all scenarios, observations are
missing at random. The number patients observed at each visit is obtained for
one replicated dataset at each level of missingness is presented in the table
below.
```{r review-missingness-table, warning=FALSE, message=FALSE, echo=FALSE}
## construct the table
cached_mmrm_results$df_missingness %>%
kable(caption = "Number of patients per visit")
```
The convergence rates of all implementations for stratified by missingness level
is presented in the plot below.
```{r review-convergence-rate-missingness, warning=FALSE, message=FALSE, echo=FALSE}
## plot the convergence rates
cached_mmrm_results$conv_rate %>%
mutate(
missingness = factor(
missingness,
levels = c("none", "mild", "moderate", "high")
)
) %>%
ggplot(aes(x = method, y = convergence_rate)) +
geom_point() +
facet_grid(rows = vars(missingness)) +
xlab("Method") +
ylab("Convergence Rate (10 Replicates)") +
ggtitle("Convergence Rates by Missingness Levels") +
scale_y_continuous(labels = scales::percent_format(accuracy = 1)) +
theme_bw()
```
`mmrm`, `gls`, and `PROC GLIMMIX` are resilient to missingness, only exhibiting
some convergence problems in the scenarios with the most missingness. These
implementations converged in all the other scenarios' replicates. `glmmTMB`, on
the other hand, has convergence issues in the no-, mild-, and high-missingness
datasets, with the worst convergence rate occurring in the datasets with the
most dropout. Finally, `lmer` is unreliable in all scenarios, suggesting that
it's convergence issues stem from something other than the missing observations.
Note that the default optimization schemes are used for each method; these
schemes can be modified to potentially improve convergence rates.
A more comprehensive simulation study using data-generating processes similar to
the one used here is outlined in the
[`simulations/missing-data-benchmarks`](https://github.com/openpharma/mmrm/tree/main/simulations/missing-data-benchmarks)
subdirectory. In addition to assessing the effect of missing data on software
convergence rates, we also evaluate these methods' fit times and empirical bias,
variance, 95% coverage rates, type I error rates and type II error rates. `mmrm`
is found to be the most most robust software for fitting MMRMs in scenarios
where a large proportion of patients are missing from the last time points.
Additionally, `mmrm` has the fastest average fit times regardless of the amount
of missingness. All implementations considered produce similar empirical biases,
variances, 95% coverage rates, type I error rates and type II error rates.
# Session Information
```{r review-session-info, echo=FALSE}
sessionInfo()
```