The CATMOD Procedure

Example 32.8 Repeated Measures, Logistic Analysis of Growth Curve

(View the complete code for this example.)

The following data, from a longitudinal study reported in Koch et al. (1977), are from patients in four populations (2 diagnostic groups 2 treatments) who are measured at three times to assess their response (n=normal or a=abnormal) to treatment:

title 'Growth Curve Analysis';
data growth2;
   input Diagnosis $ Treatment $ week1 $ week2 $ week4 $ count @@;
   datalines;
mild std n n n 16    severe std n n n  2
mild std n n a 13    severe std n n a  2
mild std n a n  9    severe std n a n  8
mild std n a a  3    severe std n a a  9
mild std a n n 14    severe std a n n  9
mild std a n a  4    severe std a n a 15
mild std a a n 15    severe std a a n 27
mild std a a a  6    severe std a a a 28
mild new n n n 31    severe new n n n  7
mild new n n a  0    severe new n n a  2
mild new n a n  6    severe new n a n  5
mild new n a a  0    severe new n a a  2
mild new a n n 22    severe new a n n 31
mild new a n a  2    severe new a n a  5
mild new a a n  9    severe new a a n 32
mild new a a a  0    severe new a a a  6
;

The analysis is directed at assessing the effect of the repeated measurement factor, Time, as well as the independent variables, Diagnosis (mild or severe) and Treatment (std or new). The RESPONSE statement is used to compute the logits of the marginal probabilities. The times used in the design matrix (0, 1, 2) correspond to the logarithms (base 2) of the actual times (1, 2, 4). The following statements produce Output 32.8.1 through Output 32.8.4:

proc catmod data=growth2 order=data;
   title2 'Reduced Logistic Model';
   weight count;
   population Diagnosis Treatment;
   response logit;
   model week1*week2*week4=(1 0 0 0,  /* mild, std */
                            1 0 1 0,
                            1 0 2 0,

                            1 0 0 0,  /* mild, new */
                            1 0 0 1,
                            1 0 0 2,

                            0 1 0 0,  /* severe, std */
                            0 1 1 0,
                            0 1 2 0,

                            0 1 0 0,  /* severe, new */
                            0 1 0 1,
                            0 1 0 2)
          (1='Mild diagnosis, week 1',
           2='Severe diagnosis, week 1',
           3='Time effect for std trt',
           4='Time effect for new trt')
           / freq design;
   contrast 'Diagnosis effect, week 1' all_parms 1 -1 0 0;
   contrast 'Equal time effects' all_parms 0 0 1 -1;
quit;

The samples and the response numbers are defined in Output 32.8.1, and the frequency distribution of the response numbers within the samples is displayed.

Output 32.8.1: Logistic Analysis of Growth Curve

Growth Curve Analysis
Reduced Logistic Model

The CATMOD Procedure

Data Summary
Responseweek1*week2*week4Response Levels8
Weight VariablecountPopulations4
Data SetGROWTH2Total Frequency340
Frequency Missing0Observations29

Population Profiles
SampleDiagnosisTreatmentSample Size
1mildstd80
2mildnew70
3severestd100
4severenew90

Response Profiles
Responseweek1week2week4
1nnn
2nna
3nan
4naa
5ann
6ana
7aan
8aaa


Output 32.8.2 displays the design matrix specified in the MODEL statement, and the observed logits of the marginal probabilities are displayed in the Response Function column.

Output 32.8.2: Response Frequencies

Response Frequencies
SampleResponse Number
12345678
1161393144156
23106022290
322899152728
47252315326

Response Functions and Design Matrix
SampleFunction
Number
Response
Function
Design Matrix
1 2 3 4
110.050011000
 20.353641010
 30.730891020
210.114411000
 21.299281001
 33.526361002
31-1.324930100
 2-0.944460110
 3-0.160340120
41-1.531480100
 20.000000101
 31.609440102


The analysis of variance table in Output 32.8.3 shows that the data can be adequately modeled by two parameters that represent diagnosis effects at week 1 and two log-linear time effects (one for each treatment). Both of the time effects are significant.

Since the estimate of the logit for the severe diagnosis effect (parameter 2) is more negative than it is for the mild diagnosis effect (parameter 1), there is a smaller predicted probability of the first response (normal) for the severe diagnosis group.

Output 32.8.3: ANOVA and Parameter Estimates

Analysis of Variance
SourceDF Chi-SquarePr > ChiSq
Mild diagnosis, week 110.280.5955
Severe diagnosis, week 11100.48<.0001
Time effect for std trt126.35<.0001
Time effect for new trt1125.09<.0001
Residual84.200.8387

Analysis of Weighted Least Squares Estimates
EffectParameterEstimate Standard
Error
Chi-
Square
Pr > ChiSq
Model1-0.07160.13480.280.5955
 2-1.35290.1350100.48<.0001
 30.49440.096326.35<.0001
 41.45520.1301125.09<.0001


The analysis of contrasts (Output 32.8.4) shows that the diagnosis effect at week 1 is highly significant. In other words, those subjects with a severe diagnosis have a significantly higher probability of abnormal response at week 1 than those subjects with a mild diagnosis.

Output 32.8.4: Contrasts

Analysis of Contrasts
ContrastDFChi-SquarePr > ChiSq
Diagnosis effect, week 1177.02<.0001
Equal time effects159.12<.0001


The analysis of contrasts (Output 32.8.4) also shows that the time effect for the standard treatment is significantly different from the one for the new treatment. The table of parameter estimates (Output 32.8.3) shows that the time effect for the new treatment (parameter 4) is stronger than it is for the standard treatment (parameter 3).