Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

In medical investigations, the ratio \(\theta = {p_1}/{p_2}\)is often of more interest than the difference \({p_1} - {p_2}\)(e.g., individuals given treatment 1 are how many times as likely to recover as those given treatment\(2?)\). Let\(\hat \theta = {\hat p_1}/{\hat p_2}\). When \(m\)and n are both large, the statistic \(ln(\theta )\)has approximately a normal distribution with approximate mean value \(ln(\theta )\)and approximate standard deviation \({[(m - x)/(mx) + (n - y)/(ny)]^{1/2}}.\)

  1. Use these facts to obtain a large-sample 95 % CI formula for estimating\(ln(\theta )\), and then a CI for \(\theta \)itself.
  2. Return to the heart-attack data of Example 1.3, and calculate an interval of plausible values for \(\theta \)at the 95 % confidence level. What does this interval suggest about the efficacy of the aspirin treatment?

Short Answer

Expert verified

\(\begin{array}{l}{\rm{ a}}{\rm{. }}\ln \hat \theta \pm {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sqrt {\frac{{m - x}}{{mx}} + \frac{{n - y}}{{ny}}} ;\exp \;\;\;\ln \hat \theta \pm {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sqrt {\frac{{m - x}}{{mx}} + \frac{{n - y}}{{ny}}} ;{\rm{ }}\\{\rm{ a}}{\rm{. }}(1.43,2.32)\end{array}\)

b) \(\hat \theta = \frac{{0.0171}}{{0.0094}} = 1.818\)

Aspirin appears to be beneficial.

Step by step solution

01

Step 1:To obtain a 95% large sample confidence intervalfor estimating the \(ln(\theta )\)and\(\theta \)

(a):

In order to obtain a 95% large sample confidence interval you need to use facts that the standard deviations of a normally distributed random variable \(\ln \hat \theta \)

\(\begin{array}{l}is{\rm{ }}\sigma = \sqrt {\frac{{m - x}}{{mx}} + \frac{{n - y}}{{ny}}} {\rm{ and the mean value is }}\mu = \ln \theta \cdot {\rm{ }}\\{\rm{When }}\end{array}\)

Alpha=0.05, at 95 %

\(\begin{array}{l}{\rm{ confidence interval can be obtained from }}P\left( {{z_1} < \ln \hat \theta < {z_2}} \right) = 1 - \alpha {\rm{ }}\\{\rm{ and the mentioned facts above as }}\end{array}\)

\(\begin{array}{c}P\left( {{z_1} < \ln \hat \theta < {z_2}} \right) = P\;\;\left( {\;\frac{{{z_1} - \mu }}{\sigma } < \frac{{\ln \hat \theta - \mu }}{\sigma } < \frac{{{z_2} - \mu }}{\sigma }} \right)\\ = P\;\;\left( {\;\frac{{{z_1} - \mu }}{\sigma } < Z < \frac{{{z_2} - \mu }}{\sigma }} \right) = 0.95\end{array}\)

Where,

Z is standard normal distribution and the upper and lower bounds are

\[\begin{array}{l}\frac{{{z_2} - \mu }}{\sigma } = {z_{\alpha /2}}\\\frac{{{z_1} - \mu }}{\sigma } = - {z_{\alpha /2}}\end{array}\]

Thus, upper bound for a 95 % large sample confidence interval for \(\ln \theta \)is

\(\begin{array}{l}\frac{{{z_2} - \mu }}{\sigma } = {z_{\alpha /2}}\\{z_2} - \mu = {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sigma \\{z_2} = \mu + {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sigma \\{z_2} = \ln \hat \theta + {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sqrt {\frac{{m - x}}{{mx}} + \frac{{n - y}}{{ny}}} \end{array}\)

and the lower bound is

\(\begin{array}{l}\frac{{{z_1} - \mu }}{\sigma } = - {z_{\alpha /2}}\\{z_1} - \mu = - {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sigma \\{z_1} = \mu - {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sigma \\{z_1} = \ln \hat \theta - {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sqrt {\frac{{m - x}}{{mx}} + \frac{{n - y}}{{ny}}} \end{array}\)

Finally, the formula for a 95 % large sample confidence interval is

\(\ln \hat \theta \pm {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sqrt {\frac{{m - x}}{{mx}} + \frac{{n - y}}{{ny}}} \)

The value needed to obtain confidence interval is the natural log

\(\begin{array}{c}\ln \hat \theta = \ln 1.818\\ \approx 0.598\end{array}\)

Remember that\({z_{\alpha /2}} = {z_{0.025}} = 1.96\)from the table in the appendix of the book. Now, the 95% confidence interval for\(\ln \theta \)is

\(\begin{array}{c}\ln \hat \theta \pm {z_{\alpha /2}} \times \sqrt {\frac{{m - x}}{{mx}} + \frac{{n - y}}{{ny}}} \\ = 0.598 \pm 1.96 \times \sqrt {\frac{{11,034 - 189}}{{11,034 \cdot 189}} + \frac{{11,037 - 104}}{{11,037 \cdot 104}}} \\ = 0.598 \pm 1.96 \times 0.1213\\ = (0.36,0.84).\end{array}\)

Taking the anti-logs of the computed\({\rm{Cl}}\), the 95 % confidence interval for \(\theta \)is\((1.43,2.32)\)

There is 95% confident that individuals who do not take aspirin treatment is about \(1.43\) to \(2.32\) times more likely to have a heart attack than from those from control group. This means that the aspirin therapy is good to reduce number of people who have heart attack.

02

To obtain the interval suggest about the efficacy of the aspirin treatment

b).

From the example \(1.4\) (in example 1.3 there are no aspirin treatments thus assume that there is a typing mistake), the given are

\(m = 11,034,n = 11,037,x = 189,y = 104\)

Wherem stands for control group, n stands for aspirin group,x is number of people who had heart attack from control group, and y is number of people who had heart attack from aspirin group. From

\(\hat \theta = \frac{{{{\hat p}_1}}}{{{{\hat p}_2}}}\)

Where

\({\hat p_1} = \frac{{189}}{{11,034}} = 0.017129\)

And

\({\hat p_2} = \frac{{104}}{{11,037}} = 0.009423\)

Thus the estimate is\(\hat \theta = \frac{{0.0171}}{{0.0094}} = 1.818\)

03

Final conclusion

\(\begin{array}{l}{\rm{ a}}{\rm{. }}\ln \hat \theta \pm {z_{\alpha /2}} \cdot \sqrt {\frac{{m - x}}{{mx}} + \frac{{n - y}}{{ny}}} ;\exp \;\;\;\ln \hat \theta \pm {z_{\alpha /2}} \cdot \sqrt {\frac{{m - x}}{{mx}} + \frac{{n - y}}{{ny}}} ;{\rm{ }}\\{\rm{ a}}{\rm{. }}(1.43,2.32)\end{array}\)

b) \(\hat \theta = \frac{{0.0171}}{{0.0094}} = 1.818\)

Aspirin appears to be beneficial.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Head ability is the ability of a cylindrical piece of material to be shaped into the head of a bolt, screw, or other cold-formed part without cracking. The article "New Methods for Assessing Cold Heading Quality" (Wire J. Intl., Oct. 1996: 66-72) described the result of a head ability impact test applied to 30 specimens of aluminum killed steel and 30 specimens of silicon killed steel. The sample mean head ability rating number for the steel specimens was 6.43, and the sample mean for aluminum specimens was 7.09. Suppose that the sample standard deviations were 1.08 and 1.19, respectively. Do you agree with the article's authors that the difference in head ability ratings is significant at the 5% level (assuming that the two head ability distributions are normal)?

Using the traditional formula, a \(95\% \) CI for \({p_1} - {p_2}\)is to be constructed based on equal sample sizes from the two populations. For what value of \(n( = m)\)will the resulting interval have a width at most of .1, irrespective of the results of the sampling?

Cushing's disease is characterized by muscular weakness due to adrenal or pituitary dysfunction. To provide effective treatment, it is important to detect childhood Cushing's disease as early as possible. Age at onset of symptoms and age at diagnosis (months) for 15 children suffering from the disease were given in the article "Treatment of Cushing's Disease in Childhood and Adolescence by Transphenoidal Microadenomectomy" (New Engl. J. of Med., 1984: 889). Here are the values of the differences between age at onset of symptoms and age at diagnosis:

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{ - 24}&{ - 12}&{ - 55}&{ - 15}&{ - 30}&{ - 60}&{ - 14}&{ - 21}\\{ - 48}&{ - 12}&{ - 25}&{ - 53}&{ - 61}&{ - 69}&{ - 80}&{}\end{array}\)

a. Does the accompanying normal probability plot cast strong doubt on the approximate normality of the population distribution of differences?

b. Calculate a lower\(95\% \)confidence bound for the population mean difference, and interpret the resulting bound.

c. Suppose the (age at diagnosis) - (age at onset) differences had been calculated. What would be a\(95\backslash \% \)upper confidence bound for the corresponding population mean difference?

Is there any systematic tendency for part-time college faculty to hold their students to different standards than do full-time faculty? The article “Are There Instructional Differences Between Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty?” (College Teaching, \(2009: 23 - 26)\) reported that for a sample of \(125 \) courses taught by fulltime faculty, the mean course \(GPA\) was \(2.7186\) and the standard deviation was \(.63342\), whereas for a sample of \(88\) courses taught by part-timers, the mean and standard deviation were \(2.8639\) and \(.49241,\) respectively. Does it appear that true average course \(GPA\) for part-time faculty differs from that for faculty teaching full-time? Test the appropriate hypotheses at significance level \( .01\).

Torsion during hip external rotation (ER) and extension may be responsible for certain kinds of injuries in golfers and other athletes. The article "Hip Rotational Velocities During the Full Golf Swing" (J. of Sports Science and Medicine, 2009: 296-299) reported on a study in which peak ER velocity and peak IR (internal rotation) velocity (both in deg.sec\(^{ - 1}\)) were determined for a sample of 15 female collegiate golfers during their swings. The following data was supplied by the article's authors.

\(\begin{aligned}{*{20}{r}}{ Golfer }&{ \backslash multicolumn1c ER }&{ IR }&{ \backslash multicolumn1c diff }&{z perc }\\1&{ - 130.6}&{ - 98.9}&{ - 31.7}&{ - 1.28}\\2&{ - 125.1}&{ - 115.9}&{ - 9.2}&{ - 0.97}\\3&{ - 51.7}&{ - 161.6}&{109.9}&{0.34}\\4&{ - 179.7}&{ - 196.9}&{17.2}&{ - 0.73}\\5&{ - 130.5}&{ - 170.7}&{40.2}&{ - 0.34}\\6&{ - 101.0}&{ - 274.9}&{173.9}&{0.97}\\7&{ - 24.4}&{ - 275.0}&{250.6}&{1.83}\\8&{ - 231.1}&{ - 275.7}&{44.6}&{ - 0.17}\\9&{ - 186.8}&{ - 214.6}&{27.8}&{ - 0.52}\\{10}&{ - 58.5}&{ - 117.8}&{59.3}&{0.00}\\{11}&{ - 219.3}&{ - 326.7}&{107.4}&{0.17}\\{12}&{ - 113.1}&{ - 272.9}&{159.8}&{0.73}\\{13}&{ - 244.3}&{ - 429.1}&{184.8}&{1.28}\\{14}&{ - 184.4}&{ - 140.6}&{ - 43.8}&{ - 1.83}\\{15}&{ - 199.2}&{ - 345.6}&{146.4}&{0.52}\\{}&{}&{}&{}&{}\end{aligned}\)

a. Is it plausible that the differences came from a normally distributed population?

b. The article reported that mean\(( \pm SD) = - 145.3(68.0)\)for ER velocity and\( = - 227.8(96.6)\)for IR velocity. Based just on this information, could a test of hypotheses about the difference between true average IR velocity and true average ER velocity be carried out? Explain.

c. The article stated that " The lead hip peak IR velocity was significantly greater than the trail hip ER velocity\(\;\left( {p = 0.003, t value = 3.65} \right)\). "$ (The phrasing suggests that an upper-tailed test was used.) Is that in fact the case? (Note: "\(p = .033 \)in Table 2 of the article is erroneous.)

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free