Mixed-effect models are flexible tools for researchers in a myriad of medical fields, but that flexibility comes at the cost of complexity and if users are not careful in how their model is specified, they could be making faulty inferences from their data. We argue that there is significant confusion around appropriate random effects to be included in a model given the study design, with researchers generally being better at specifying the fixed effects of a model which map onto to their research hypotheses. To that end, we present an instructive framework for evaluating the random effects of a model in three different situations: (1) longitudinal designs; (2) factorial repeated measures; and (3) when dealing with multiple sources of variance. We provide worked examples with open-access code and data in an online repository. This framework will be helpful for students and researchers who are new to mixed effect models, and to reviewers who may have to evaluate a novel model as part of their review.
翻译:混合效应模型是许多医学领域研究人员的灵活工具,但灵活性是以复杂程度为代价的,如果用户在如何指定模型时不小心谨慎,它们可能会从其数据中作出错误的推论。我们争辩说,在将适当随机效应纳入模型上存在很大的混乱,而根据研究设计,研究人员通常更能说明模型的固定效应,该模型将附着在研究假设上。为此,我们提出了一个指导性框架,用于评估模型在三种不同情况下的随机效应:(1) 纵向设计;(2) 因素重复措施;(3) 处理多种差异源时,我们提供公开代码和在线数据库数据的工作实例。这个框架将有助于新形成混合效应模型的学生和研究人员,以及可能不得不评价新模型作为审查一部分的审评员。