BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Jiacong Du

Jiacong Du contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
ApplicationsMethodologyComputation

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Methods for Large-scale Single Mediator Hypothesis Testing: Possible Choices and Comparisons

Mediation hypothesis testing for a large number of mediators is challenging due to the composite structure of the null hypothesis, H0:alpha*beta=0 (alpha: effect of the exposure on the mediator after adjusting for confounders; beta: effect of the mediator on the outcome after adjusting for exposure and confounders). In this paper, we reviewed three classes of methods for multiple mediation hypothesis testing. In addition to these existing methods, we developed the Sobel-comp method, which uses a corrected mixture reference distribution for Sobel's test statistic. We performed extensive simulation studies to compare all six methods in terms of the false positive rates under the null hypothesis and the true positive rates under the alternative hypothesis. We found that the class of methods which uses a mixture reference distribution could best maintain the false positive rates at the nominal level under the null hypothesis and had the greatest true positive rates under the alternative hypothesis. We applied all methods to study the mediation mechanism of DNA methylation sites in the pathway from adult socioeconomic status to glycated hemoglobin level using data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). We also provide guidelines for choosing the optimal mediation hypothesis testing method in practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Outcome Adaptive Propensity Score Methods for Handling Censoring and High-Dimensionality: Application to Insurance Claims

Propensity scores are commonly used to reduce the confounding bias in non-randomized observational studies for estimating the average treatment effect. An important assumption underlying this approach is that all confounders that are associated with both the treatment and the outcome of interest are measured and included in the propensity score model. In the absence of strong prior knowledge about potential confounders, researchers may agnostically want to adjust for a high-dimensional set of pre-treatment variables. As such, variable selection procedure is needed for propensity score estimation. In addition, recent studies show that including variables related to treatment only in the propensity score model may inflate the variance of the treatment effect estimates, while including variables that are predictive of only the outcome can improve efficiency. In this paper, we propose a flexible approach to incorporating outcome-covariate relationship in the propensity score model by including the predicted binary outcome probability (OP) as a covariate. Our approach can be easily adapted to an ensemble of variable selection methods, including regularization methods and modern machine learning tools based on classification and regression trees. We evaluate our method to estimate the treatment effects on a binary outcome, which is possibly censored, among multiple treatment groups. Simulation studies indicate that incorporating OP for estimating the propensity scores can improve statistical efficiency and protect against model misspecification. The proposed methods are applied to a cohort of advanced stage prostate cancer patients identified from a private insurance claims database for comparing the adverse effects of four commonly used drugs for treating castration-resistant prostate cancer.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Variable selection with multiply-imputed datasets: choosing between stacked and grouped methods

Penalized regression methods, such as lasso and elastic net, are used in many biomedical applications when simultaneous regression coefficient estimation and variable selection is desired. However, missing data complicates the implementation of these methods, particularly when missingness is handled using multiple imputation. Applying a variable selection algorithm on each imputed dataset will likely lead to different sets of selected predictors, making it difficult to ascertain a final active set without resorting to ad hoc combination rules. In this paper we consider a general class of penalized objective functions which, by construction, force selection of the same variables across multiply-imputed datasets. By pooling objective functions across imputations, optimization is then performed jointly over all imputed datasets rather than separately for each dataset. We consider two objective function formulations that exist in the literature, which we will refer to as "stacked" and "grouped" objective functions. Building on existing work, we (a) derive and implement efficient cyclic coordinate descent and majorization-minimization optimization algorithms for both continuous and binary outcome data, (b) incorporate adaptive shrinkage penalties, (c) compare these methods through simulation, and (d) develop an R package miselect for easy implementation. Simulations demonstrate that the "stacked" objective function approaches tend to be more computationally efficient and have better estimation and selection properties. We apply these methods to data from the University of Michigan ALS Patients Repository (UMAPR) which aims to identify the association between persistent organic pollutants and ALS risk.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access