Estimating survival of dental fillings on the basis of interval-censored data and multi-state models

Pierre Joly, Thomas Gerds, Vibeke Qvist, Daniel Commenges and Niels Keiding have a new paper in Statistics in Medicine. This considers the estimation of survival times of dental fillings from interval censored data. A particular feature of the data is that there is inherent clustering in the form of multiple fillings from the same child.

Bizarrely the authors claim "we are not aware of any paper combining multi-state models for clustered data with interval censoring" implying they (and presumably the referees as well) are unaware of both Cook, Yi, Lee and Gladman (Biometrics, 2004) and
Sutradhar and Cook (JRSS C, 2008), the latter having "clustered", "multistate" and "interval-censored" all in the title!

A progressive four-state model is assumed for each filling, with the states consisting of Treatment, Filling failure, endodontic complication and exfoliation (an absorbing state).
For exfoliation, age of child is taken as the time scale meaning that the time of treatment is taken as a left-truncation time. For transitions from treatment to the other two states, time since treatment is taken as the time scale. Weibull transition intensities are assumed. However, monitoring ended once any filling event (filling failure or endodontic complication) had occurred. Because the exact time of an endodontic complication is known if it occurred during the monitoring period, the transition intensity from endodontic complication to exfoliation is not relevant to the likelihood. The authors also argue that it is necessary to assume that the intensity from filling failure to exfoliation and from treatment to exfoliation is the same, due to never being able to observe a filling failure to exfoliation transition. Strictly speaking, under the assumption of non-informative observation times, there should be some information in the data to estimate something about the separate intensities based on the proportion of cases where a filling was observed compared to the proportion where exfoliation occurred without observing a filling. Indeed in the research report by Frydman et al (2008), using a subset of the data in the current paper and a three-state verison of the model, a discrete-time NPMLE for the intensities was developed.

Random effects are incorporated into the model in a hierarchical way, with a dentist level random effect that affects the intensity to filling failure or endodontic complication and correlated child level random effects determining the correlation to time to failures (thus affecting the transitions to filling failure and endodontic complication) and time to exfoliation (thus affecting only the exfoliation transition intensity). The random effects are taken to be multivariate Normal with a log-additive effect on the intensities. Calculating the likelihood requires numerical integration, which here is achieved via Gauss-Hermite quadrature. 30 quadrature points were used - this seems a rather small number for a multi-dimensional integral. Cook et al (2004) avoided attempting to get a strict approximation to the multivariate Normal by formally restricting the random effects to have a discrete distribution. Sutradhar and Cook (2008) used an MCEM in order to apply a continuous random effects distribution. That approach is likely to be more computationally intensive that Gauss-Hermite quadrature (on 30pts) but more accurate. The recent suggestion by Putter and van Houwelingen to use a simple two-component mixture frailty could also be adaptable for this situation.

Two filling types, amalgam and glass ionomer are compared in terms of probability of surviving without complication, with amalgam performing somewhat better.