Ordinal mixed model with variance-covariance matrix

Dear Friends,
I am planning to fit an ordinal mixed model, in a genome-wide association study.
I have measurements (y) on a sample of dogs (n=116), and a matrix of genotypes as the covariates (n*p), p~ 11 million. My y vector has coded as: Control(0), Low risk (1), Medium risk (2), and High risk (4), depends on the severity of a disease. I am planning to run a model as follow:

y=mu+p+g+e,
mu = is the overall mean
p = is a single covariate (we want to obtain p-values or LRT for this part)
g = is random part g~N(0,var(g)*G)
e = residual

Here, y is a vector of ordinal values (0,1,2,3,4), p is a fixed covariate, I want to write a loop over all p covariates, then they can enter the model iteratively and obtain p-values for each covariate. The g, is a random part and has a normal distribution g~N(0,var(g)G), G is a n*n covariance matrix between all 116 dogs ( we call it “genomic relationship matrix”), always is a positive definite square matrix. I would appreciate it if you could help me to fit this model and include G matrix as a covariance matrix in the random part.

Kind regards

Hi sorry for note getting to you earlier,
I think such a model would be most easily expressed using the brms package, which supports both ordinal outcomes (using the cumulative family, see https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2515245918823199 for more background) and fixed correlation matrices (Estimating Phylogenetic Multilevel Models with brms • brms).

I’ll however note that with such a big dataset, fitting with brms (or any MCMC method) might be computationally very demanding. You are however likely to also be able to fit such a model with R-INLA, which doesn’t use MCMC and uses an approximation instead and is thus quite a bit faster, while in high-data regime the approximation tends to be very good.

p-values and likelihood-ratio tests don’t have a direct counterpart in the Bayesian paradigm, so I am not sure you will obtain what you need :-) For my current best thinking on how to answer questions about model/hypothesis choice see Hypothesis testing, model selection, model comparison - some thoughts which lists some ways to express such questions when fitting Bayesian models.

Best of luck with your model!

Thanks Martin , for the great navigation! do you know is there any R package in the Frequentist paradigm to help me in this case?
Mehdi

I don’t really follow the frequentist packages, so can’t help much. I think support for both random effects AND custom covariance matrix AND ordinal models would be a bit hard to find.

You might want to give brms a try first and maybe it will be fast enough for your purposes. If not, I think inlabru (which is the more recent interface to INLA) coud have you covered - it supports ordinal models and its generic covariance structures should let you specify the phylogenetic matrix (although inlabru works with precision matrix which could change the model a bit).

The ‘ordinal’ package will let you run ordinal models with 1 or 2 random effects in a frequentist framework. But, convergence can be a challenge if there is complexity to the design/data.

Thank you so much Martin, I will follow the R-INLA, hope that can help! I tried the brms, which was the same as mcmcglmm, slow in computation!

Thanks JLC
Unfortunately seems that this package can not handle the variance-covariance matrix between samples for random effects.

Mehdi

Indeed. I found frequentist approaches don’t handle these types of models well. As Martin suggested, implementing your model in ‘brms’ or directly in Stan is likely worthwhile.

Thanks, JLC and Martin for all your helps and advises !!