Bayesian Analysis

Flexible Bayesian Human Fecundity Models

Sungduk Kim, Rajeshwari Sundaram, Germaine M. Buck Louis, and Cecilia Pyper

Full-text: Open access

Abstract

Human fecundity is an issue of considerable interest for both epidemiological and clinical audiences, and is dependent upon a couple’s biologic capacity for reproduction coupled with behaviors that place a couple at risk for pregnancy. Bayesian hierarchical models have been proposed to better model the conception probabilities by accounting for the acts of intercourse around the day of ovulation, i.e., during the fertile window. These models can be viewed in the framework of a generalized nonlinear model with an exponential link. However, a fixed choice of link function may not always provide the best fit, leading to potentially biased estimates for probability of conception. Motivated by this, we propose a general class of models for fecundity by relaxing the choice of the link function under the generalized nonlinear model framework. We use a sample from the Oxford Conception Study (OCS) to illustrate the utility and fit of this general class of models for estimating human conception. Our findings reinforce the need for attention to be paid to the choice of link function in modeling conception, as it may bias the estimation of conception probabilities. Various properties of the proposed models are examined and a Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling algorithm was developed for implementing the Bayesian computations. The deviance information criterion measure and logarithm of pseudo marginal likelihood are used for guiding the choice of links. The supplemental material section contains technical details of the proof of the theorem stated in the paper, and contains further simulation results and analysis.

Article information

Source
Bayesian Anal., Volume 7, Number 4 (2012), 771-800.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 27 November 2012

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ba/1354024459

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1214/12-BA726

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3000011

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
1330.62398

Keywords
Conception Fecundity Generalized t-distribution Generalized nonlinear model Markov chain Monte Carlo Menstrual Cycle Posterior distribution

Citation

Kim, Sungduk; Sundaram, Rajeshwari; Buck Louis, Germaine M.; Pyper, Cecilia. Flexible Bayesian Human Fecundity Models. Bayesian Anal. 7 (2012), no. 4, 771--800. doi:10.1214/12-BA726. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ba/1354024459


Export citation

References

  • Albert and Chib, S. (1993). “Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 669-79.
  • Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A. (1972). Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
  • Arellano-Valle, R. B. and Bolfarine, H. (1995). “On some characterizations of the t-distribution.” Statistics Probability Letters, 25, 79-85.
  • Barrett, J. C. and Marshall, J. (1969). “The risk of conception on different days of the menstrual cycle.” Population Studies, 23, 455-461.
  • Buck Louis, G.M., Schisterman, E.F., Sweeney, A.M., Wilcosky, T.C., Gore-Langton, R.E., Lynch, C.D., Boyd Barr, D., Schrader, S.M., Kim, S., Chen, Z., and Sundaram, R. (2011). “Designing prospective cohort studies for assessing reproductive and developmental toxicity during sensitive windows of human reproduction and development—the LIFE Study.” Paediatric Perinatal Epidemiology, 25, 413-424.
  • Chen, M.-H. and Dey, D. K. (1998). “Bayesian modeling of correlated binary responses via scale mixture of multivariate normal link functions.” Sankhya, Series A, 60, 322-343.
  • Chen, M.-H., Dey, D. K., and Shao, Q.-M. (1999). “A new skewed link model for dichotomous quantal response data.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94, 1172-1186
  • Chen, M.-H. and Shao, Q.-M. (2001). “Propriety of posterior distribution for dichotomous quantal response models with general link functions.” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 129, 293-302.
  • Cowles, C. and Carlin, B. P. (1996). “Markov chain Monte Carlo convergence diagnostics: A comparative review.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 883-904.
  • Czado, C. and Santner, T. J. (1992). “The effect of link mis-specification on binary regression inference.” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 33, 213-231.
  • Dunson, D. B. (2001). “Bayesian models for distinguishing effects on the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle.” Biometrics, 57, 1067-1073.
  • Dunson, D.B., Baird, D.D., Wilcox, C.R. et al. (1999). “Day specific probabilities of clinical pregnancy based on two studies with imperfect measures of ovulation.” Human Reproduction, 14, 1835-1839.
  • Dunson, D. B. and Stanford, J. B. (2005). “Bayesian inference on predictors of conception probabilities.” Biometrics, 61, 126-133.
  • Dunson, D. B. and Weinberg, C. R. (2000). “Accounting for unreported and missing intercourse in human fertility studies.” Statistics in Medicine, 19, 665-679.
  • Dunson, D. B., Weinberg, C. R., Baird, D. D., Kesner, J. S., and Wilcox, A. J. (2001). “Assessing human fertility using several markers of ovulation.” Statistics in Medicine, 20, 965-978.
  • Dunson, D. B. and Zhou, H. B. (2000). “A Bayesian model for fecundability and sterility.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 1054-1062.
  • Ecochard, R.(2006). “Heterogeneity in fecundability studies: issues and modelling.” Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 15, 141-160.
  • Gini, C. (1926). “Decline in the birth rate and fecundability of women.” The Eugenics Review, 17, 258-274.
  • Hanson, M.A. and Gluckman, P.D. (2008). “Developmental origins of health and disease: new insights.” Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 102, 90-93.
  • Hastings, W.K. (1970). “Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications.” Biometrika, 57, 97-109.
  • Ibrahim, J.G., Chen. M.-H., and Sinha, D. (2001). Bayesian Survival Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York.
  • Kim, S., Chen, M.-H., and Dey, D.K. (2008), “Flexible generalized $t$-link models for binary response data.” Biometrika, 95, 93-106.
  • Knaus, H. (1929). “Eine neue methode zur bestimmung des ovulationstermines.” Zentralblatt für Gynäkologie, 53, 2193.
  • Liu, J.S. (1994). “The collapsed Gibbs sampler in Bayesian computations with applications to a gene regulation problem.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 958-966.
  • Mallick, B.K. and Gelfand, A.E. (1994). “Generalized linear models with unknown link functions.” Biometrika, 81, 237-245.
  • Newton, M.A., Czado, C., and Chappell, R. (1996). “Bayesian inference for semiparametric binary regression.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 142-153.
  • Ogino, K. (1930). “Ovulationstermin und konzeptionstermin.” Zentralblatt für Gynäkologie, 54, 464-479.
  • Pyper C., Bromhall L., Dummett S., Altman D.G., Browbill P., and Murphy M. (2006). “The Oxford Conception Study design and recruitment experience.” Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 20 (supplement), 51-59.
  • Royston, P. and Ferreira, A. (1999). “A new approach to modeling daily probabilities of conception.” Biometrics, 55, 1005-1013.
  • Scarpa, B. and Dunson, D.B. (2007). “Bayesian methods for searching for optimal rules for timing intercourse to achieve pregnancy.” Statistics in Medicine, 26, 1920-1936.
  • Scheike, T. H. and Jensen, T. K. (1997). “A discrete survival model with random effects: an application to time to pregnancy.” Biometrics, 53, 318-329.
  • Schwartz, D., MacDonald, P. D. M., and Heuchel, V. (1980). “Fecundability, coital frequency and the viability of ova.” Population Studies, 34, 397-400.
  • Spiegelhalter, D.J., Best, N.G., Carlin, B.P., and Van Der Linde, A. (2002). “Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 62, 583-640.
  • Sundaram, R., McLain, A.C., and Buck Louis, G.M. (2011). “A survival analysis approach to modeling human fecundity.” Biostatistics, doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxr015.
  • Weinberg, C. R. and Gladen, B. C. (1986). “The beta-geometric distribution applied to comparative fecundability studies.” Biometrics, 42, 547-560.
  • Weinberg, C. R., Gladen, B. C., and Wilcox, A. J. (1994). “Models relating the timing of intercourse to the probability of conception and the sex of the baby.” Biometrics, 50, 358-367.
  • Wilcox, A.J., Weinberg, C.R., and Baird, D.D. (1995). “Timing of sexual intercourse in relation to ovulation.” The New England Journal of Medicine, 333, 1517-1521.
  • WHO Task Forces on Methods for Determination of the Fertile Period (1980a). “Temporal relationships between ovulation and defined changes in the concentration of plasma estradiol-17$\beta$, luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone and progesterone. I. Probit analysis.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 138, 383-390.
  • WHO Task Forces on Methods for Determination of the Fertile Period (1980b). “Temporal relationships between ovulation and defined changes in the concentration of plasma estradiol-17$\beta$, luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone and progesterone. II. Histologic dating.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 139, 886-895.
  • Zhou, H. B., Weinberg, C. R., Wilcox, A. J., and Baird, D. D. (1996). “A random-effects model for cycle viability in fertility studies.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 1413-1422.

See also

  • Related item: Bruno Scarpa. Comment on Article by Kim et al. Bayesian Anal., Vol. 7, Iss. 4 (2012) 801–804.
  • Related item: Joseph B. Stanford. Comment on Article by Kim et al. Bayesian Anal., Vol. 7, Iss. 4 (2012) 805–808.
  • Related item: Sungduk Kim, Rajeshwari Sundaram, Germaine M. Buck Louis, Cecilia Pyper. Rejoinder. Bayesian Anal., Vol. 7, Iss. 4 (2012) 809–812.