19 September 2014

McNemar test and marginal homogeneity

Next post Previous post

# Friday notes

### ApTranscriptome

With analysis finally online, back to finishing ms.

Residual detail is how to deal with the analysis of the contingency table of expression patterns for each species. I posted this question to CrossValidated:

For a square matrix, is it appropriate to use a chi-squared distribution when each level of the variables are assumed to have the same overall frequency?

Specifically, I'm analyzing a dataset of the number of genes that have increased expression in an experimental treatment in two related species. My data look like this, with species 1 on the columns and species 2 on the rows:

<pre><code>                  Low       Intermediate      High
Low              2594          163            405

Intermediate     1350          558            155

High              467           65            322

</code></pre>

I *a priori* expect each class to have been the same in the common ancestor of the species (off-diagonals = 0). That is:

<pre><code>                  Low       Intermediate      High
Low              3786          0              0

Intermediate      0          1425             0

High              0           0              868

</code></pre>

My question is which of the off-diagonal cells have diverged more than expected by chance.

As a simple first pass, I've modified the standard chisq.test (in R) to use the *overall* total for each class (Low, Intermediate, High) rather than the marginal total for each class (assuming species independent...which they aren't).

<!-- language: lang-r -->

# data
d <- matrix(c(2594L, 1350L, 467L, 163L, 558L, 65L, 405L, 155L, 322L), nrow=3, ncol=3)

# row and column sums
rs <- rowSums(d)
cs <- colSums(d)

# grand mean for each class
gm <- (rs + cs) / sum(d * 2)

Ec <- outer(gm, gm, "*") * sum(d)

where Ec is the Expected value for each cell using the grand mean for each class.

Is it reasonable to use a chisq distribution to determine if the observed values deviate from the expected values by more than chance?

<!-- language: lang-r -->

Ec.chistat <- sum((data-Ec)^2 / Ec)
pchisq(Ec.chistat, df=(nrow(data)-1) * (ncol(data)-1), lower.tail = FALSE)

I realize I could probably use a GLM for this, but it's convenient to keep in table format to directly address which of the off-diagonals have increased more than expected by chance.

Note: for comparison, the standard chisq assuming independence of variable would be:

<!-- language: lang-r -->

rs <- rowSums(d)
cs <- colSums(d)
n <- sum(d)
(E <- outer(rs, cs, "*")/n)
chistat <- sum((d - E) ^ 2 / E)
pchisq(chistat, df=(nrow(d)-1) * (ncol(d)-1), lower.tail = FALSE)

And quickly received a response recommending McNemar’s paired odds ratio test, with the caveat that it only works for binary outcomes. Some Wikipedia revealed that there are at least two generalizations of the McNemar test to square tables with more than two observations. This SAS paper.

Found two R packages that include functions for Stuart-Maxwell or Bhapkar’s test:

coin

irr

Can I connect these to something like the chisq.posthoc test from the polytomous package? Or just report overall lack of marginal homogeneity and then pick out the cells with the greatest deviation? 