Nonparametric Smoothing Estimation of Conditional Distribution Functions with Longitudinal Data and Time-Varying Parametric Models By Mohammed R. Chowdhury B.Sc. in Statistics, August, 2000, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh M.Sc. in Statistics, November, 2002, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh M.A. in Statistics, July, 2008, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 31, 2014 Dissertation directed by Colin Wu Mathematical Statistician, NHLBI, National Institute of Helath, Bethesda, MD Reza Modarres Professor of Statistics
199
Embed
Nonparametric Smoothing Estimation of Conditional ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Nonparametric Smoothing Estimation ofConditional Distribution Functions with
Longitudinal Data and Time-VaryingParametric Models
By Mohammed R. Chowdhury
B.Sc. in Statistics, August, 2000, University of Chittagong, BangladeshM.Sc. in Statistics, November, 2002, University of Chittagong, BangladeshM.A. in Statistics, July, 2008, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA
A Dissertation submitted to
The Faculty ofColumbian College of Arts and Sciencesof The George Washington University
in partial satisfaction of the requirementsfor the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
January 31, 2014
Dissertation directed by
Colin WuMathematical Statistician, NHLBI, National Institute of Helath, Bethesda, MD
Reza ModarresProfessor of Statistics
The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington Univer-
sity certifies that Mohammed R. Chowdhury has passed the Final Examination for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as of December 17, 2013. This is the final and
approved form of the dissertation.
Nonparametric Smoothing Estimation ofConditional Distribution Functions with
Longitudinal Data and Time-VaryingParametric Models
Mohammed R. Chowdhury
Dissertation Research Committee:
Colin Wu, Mathematical Statistician, NHLBI, National Institute of Health, Bethesda,
MD, Dissertation Co-Director
Reza Modarres, Professor of Statistics, Dissertation Co-Director
Subrata Kundu, Associate Professor of Statistics, Committee Member
Yinglei Lai, Associate Professor of Statistics, Committee Member
ii
Dedication
To my dear parents
Mohammed Mofizur Rahaman Chowdhury & Chemona Afroze
iii
Acknowledgements
At first, I am remembering The Almighty Allah for giving me strength, patience
and ability to accomplish this research work. I would like to thank my advisors Dr.
Colin Wu and Dr. Reza Modarres for their continuous support, encouragement and
guidance. Their guidance is evident throughout. I am indebted to Dr. Subrata
Kundu and Dr. Yinglei Lai for their helpful suggestions and constructive review of
this dissertation. I am also grateful to Dr. Paul Albert and Tatiyana Apanasovich
for their invaluable comments. Additionally, I would like to express appreciation to
my friends Li Cheung, Jorge Ivan Velez and others at the Department of Statistics
for their dear friendship and support. I also thank National Heart Lung and Blood
Institute for providing me the NGHS (National Growth and Health Study) data. The
National Growth and Health Study was supported by contracts NO1-HC-55023-26
and grants U01-HL48941-44 from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. I
also thank my sister Zosna Afroze for her wholehearted support. Last, but not least,
I would like to thank my wife Nahida Akhter Irin, whose unconditional love and
devotion have provided comfort and joy. She has made all the differences in every
step of the way throughout this journey.
iv
Abstract
Nonparametric Smoothing Estimation of Conditional Distribution Functions withLongitudinal Data and Time-Varying Parametric Models
The thesis is concerned with the nonparametric estimation of the conditional distri-
bution function with longitudinal data. Nonparametric estimation and inferences of
conditional distribution functions with longitudinal data have important applications
in biomedical studies, such as epidemiological studies and longitudinal clinical trials.
Estimation without any structural assumptions may lead to inadequate and numeri-
cally unstable estimators in practice. In this Dissertation, we propose a nonparametric
approach based on time-varying parametric models for smoothing estimation of the
conditional distribution functions with a longitudinal sample and show that our local
polynomial smoothing estimator outperforms the existing Nadaraya-Watson kernel
smoothing estimator in term of root MSE and length of confidence band. In both
cases, we have used the Epanechnikov kernel and bandwidth 2.5.
Our model assumes that the conditional distribution of the outcome variable at
each given time point can be approximated by a parametric model after log trans-
formation or local Box-Cox transformation, but the parameters are smooth function
of time. Our estimation is based on a two-step smoothing method, in which we first
obtain the raw estimators of the conditional distribution functions at a set of dis-
joint time points, and then compute the final estimators at any time by smoothing
the raw estimators. Pointwise bootstrap confidence bands have been constructed for
both local polynomial smoothing estimators and Nadaraya-Watson kernel smoothing
v
estimators, resulting in a wider bootstrap confidence band for the Nadaraya-Wastson
kernel smoothing estimator. Asymptotic properties, including the asymptotic bi-
ases, variances and mean squared errors, have been derived for the local polynomial
smoothed estimators. Asymptotic distribution of the raw estimators of the condi-
tional distribution functions has been derived.
Applications of our two-step estimation method have been demonstrated through
a large epidemiological study of childhood growth and blood pressure. In our NGHS
(National Health and Growth Study) application, we report that
(a) Structural Nonparametric Model (SNM) performs better than the Unstructured
Nonparametric Model (UNM) in estimating raw probabilities as well as smoothing
probabilities on entire time design points.
(b) African American (AA) girls have higher probability of developing hypertension
than the Caucasian (CC) girls.
(c) Box-Cox transformation gives better results than the Log transformation.
(d) Smoothing-Ealry and Smoothing-Later give the same results when Log transfor-
mation is involved.
(e) Smoothing-Later is the only option when Box-Cox transformation is involved.
Finite sample properties of our procedures are investigated through a simulation
study. We report that root MSE is smaller at each of the 101 time design point for
local polynomial smoothing estimator than the Nadaraya-Watson kernel smoothing
estimator. A much stronger conclusion for smaller root MSE is demonstrated by
structural nonparametric model than the unstructured nonparametric model when
extreme conditional tail probabilities are estimated and smoothed.
band. We have also noticed that in UNM, many raw estimates of the tail probabilities
are zero. The scenarios is worse if we consider yq(t) as the 99th percentile. Smoothing
later approach has been adopted in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3. We also com-
puted the local linear estimators of 1−Ft,θ(t|x)
[yq(t)
∣∣x] based on 1−Ft,θ(t|x)
[yq(t)
∣∣x],the smoothing-early approach of (5). Figure 4 represents the local linear smooth-
ing estimator of µ(t) and σ(t) for whole cohort. Table 12 gives the local polynomial
smoothing estimates of µ(t) and σ(t) for 100 subsamples. Figure 5 represents local lin-
ear smoothing estimators of the conditional probability by smoothing early approach
for whole cohort. By the comparison of Figure 3 and Figure 5, we can say that we
will end up with the same results whatever be the smoothing approaches (Smoothing-
Early and Smoothing-Later). This means the numerical results of 1−Ft,θ(t|x)
[yq(t)
∣∣x]is similar to 1− Ft,θ(t|x)
[yq(t)
∣∣x]. To avoid redundancy, smoothing-early approach for
the Caucasian girls and African-American girls have been ignored.
29
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
a. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.9(t))at Median height
Ages of CC girls
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
b. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.95(t))at Median height
Ages of CC girlsP
(Y>
y 0.9
5(t))
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
c. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.9(t))at Median height
Ages of CC girls
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
d. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.95(t))at Median height
Ages of CC girls
P(Y
>y 0
.95(
t))
Figure 1: Raw estimators (scatter plots), smoothing estimators (solid curves), andbootstrap pointwise 95% confidence intervals (dashed curves, B = 1000 bootstrapreplications) of the age specific probabilities of SBP greater than the 90th and 95thpopulation SBP percentiles for Caucasian girls (CC) between 9.1 and 19.0 years old.(1a) and (1b): Estimators based on the time-varying log-normal models. (1c)-(1d):Estimators based on the unstructured kernel estimators.
30
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
a. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.9(t))at Median height
Ages of AA girls
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
b. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.95(t))at Median height
Ages of AA girlsP
(Y>
y 0.9
5(t))
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
c. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.9(t))at Median height
Ages of AA girls
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
d. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.95(t))at Median height
Ages of AA girls
P(Y
>y 0
.95(
t))
Figure 2: Raw estimators (scatter plots), smoothing estimators (solid curves), andbootstrap pointwise 95% confidence intervals (dashed curves, B = 1000 bootstrapreplications) of the age specific probabilities of SBP greater than the 90th and 95thpopulation SBP percentiles for African-American (AA) girls between 9.1 and 19.0years old. (1a) and (1b): Estimators based on the time-varying log-normal models.(1c)-(1d): Estimators based on the unstructured kernel estimators.
31
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
a. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.9(t))at Median height
Ages of all girls
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
b. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.95(t))at Median height
Ages of all girlsP
(Y>
y 0.9
5(t))
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
c. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.9(t))at Median height
Ages of all girls
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
d. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.95(t))at Median height
Ages of all girls
P(Y
>y 0
.95(
t))
Figure 3: Raw estimators (scatter plots), smoothing estimators (solid curves), andbootstrap pointwise 95% confidence intervals (dashed curves, B = 1000 bootstrapreplications) of the age specific probabilities of SBP greater than the 90th and 95thpopulation SBP percentiles for all girls between 9.1 and 19.0 years old. (1a) and (1b):Estimators based on the time-varying log-normal models. (1c)-(1d): Estimators basedon the unstructured kernel estimators.
32
10 12 14 16 18
4.58
4.60
4.62
4.64
4.66
4.68
4.70
4.72
a. Age vs μ(t)
Ages of All girls
μ(t)
10 12 14 16 18
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
a. Age vs σ(t)
Ages of All girls
σ(t)
Figure 4: Raw estimators (scatter plots), smoothing estimators (solid curves), andbootstrap pointwise 95% confidence intervals (dashed curves, B = 1000 bootstrapreplications) of the age specific mean and standard deviation of SBP for All girlsbetween 9.1 and 19.0 years old. Estimators based on the time-varying log-normalmodels.
33
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
age
prob
90th
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
age
prob
95th
Figure 5: Local linear smoothing estimators (solid curves), and pointwise bootstrap95% confidence intervals (dashed curves, B = 1000 bootstrap replications) of theage specific probabilities of SBP greater than the 90th and 95th population SBPpercentiles for all girls between 9.1 and 19.0 years old. Estimators based on thetime-varying Gaussian models with smoothing early approach.
34
3.2 Simulation Results
Following the data structure of Section 1.2, we generate in each sample n=1000
subjects with 10 visits per subject. The jth visit time, tij, of the ith subject is
generated from the uniform distribution U(j − 1, j) for j = 1, . . . , 10. Given each tij,
we generate the observations Yi(tij) for Y (t) from the following simulation design:
each simulation sample, we compute the smoothing estimates of P [Y (t) > yq(t)] for
q = 0.90 and 0.95 by the local linear estimators (5) and (7) based on the time-varying
35
Gaussian model (2) and the unstructured kernel estimator (8) using the Epanechnikov
kernel and the LTCV bandwidths. The bootstrap pointwise 95% confidence intervals
for the smoothing estimators are constructed using empirical quantiles of B = 1000
bootstrap samples.
Let Pq(t) be a smoothing estimator of P [Y (t) > yq(t)] = q, which could be either
the local polynomial estimators, e.g., (5) or (7), or the unstructured kernel estimator
of (8). We measure the accuracy of Pq(t) by the average of the bias∑M
m=1
[Pq(t) −
q]/M , the empirical mean squared error MSE
[Pq(t)
]=∑M
m=1
[Pq(t) − q
]2/M or
the square root of MSE[Pq(t)
](root-MSE), where M = 1000 is the total number
of simulated samples. We assess the accuracy of a pointwise confidence interval of
Pq(t) by the empirical coverage probability of the confidence interval covering the
true value P [Y (t) > yq(t)] = q.
Table 2 shows the averages of the estimates, averages of the biases, the root-MSEs,
and the empirical coverage probabilities of the empirical quantile bootstrap pointwise
95% confidence intervals based on B = 1000 bootstrap replications for the estimation
of P [Y (t) > y.90(t)] = 0.10 at t = 1.0, 2.0, . . . , 10.0. For all the 10 time points, the
smoothing-later local linear estimators based on the time-varying Gaussian model
have smaller root-MSEs than the kernel estimators based on the unstructured non-
parametric model. Comparing the empirical coverage probabilities of the bootstrap
pointwise 95% confidence intervals, we observe that the smoothing estimators based
on the time-varying Gaussian model have higher coverage probabilities than the un-
structured kernel estimators at most of the time points.
When q increases to 0.95, Table 3 shows the averages of the biases, the root-
MSEs, and the empirical coverage probabilities of the empirical quantile bootstrap
pointwise 95% confidence intervals based on B = 1000 bootstrap replications for the
estimation of P [Y (t) > y.95(t)] = 0.05 at t = 1.0, 2.0, . . . , 10.0. Again, the smoothing
36
estimators based on the time-varying Gaussian model have smaller root-MSEs than
the unstructured kernel estimators at all 10 time points.
From Figure 6, if we compare (a) with (c) and (b) with (d), we see that smoothing
estimators from the unstructured nonparametric models gives wider confidence bands
than the smoothing estimators from the structural nonparametric models. In Figure
6, (a and b) are estimators from time varying Gaussian models and (c and d) are
estimators from unstructured kernel method. Root MSE of SNM for each time point
is smaller than the root MSE of UNM and consequently relative root MSE at each
time point is smaller than 1, which means that SNM is better than UNM. In Table
2 and Table 3, we have presented the simulation results for only 10 different integer
time points. Simulation results between integer time points are similar to the ones
presented in Table 2 and Table 3.
The results of Table 2 and Table 3 suggest that, when the time-varying paramet-
ric model is appropriate, the structural two-step smoothing estimators have smaller
mean squared errors than the unstructured smoothing estimators under a practical
longitudinal sample with moderate sample sizes. However, these results may not
hold if the time-varying parametric model is not an appropriate approximation to the
time-varying distribution functions of the longitudinal variable being considered.
37
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
a. Age vs P(Y > y0.9(t))
Age
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
b. Age vs P(Y > y(c))
Age
P(Y
>y(
c))
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
c. Age vs P(Y > y0.9(t))
Age
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
d. Age vs P(Y > y(c))
Age
P(Y
>y(
c))
Figure 6: Black solid line is local polynomial (a,b) and Nadaraya-Watson (c,d)smoothing estimators with Epanechnikov kernel for SNM and UNM. Dotted linesrepresent the 95% pointwise bootstrap confidence band for 1000 simulated samples.
38
Tab
le2:
Ave
rage
sof
esti
mat
es,
aver
ages
ofth
ebia
ses,
the
squar
ero
otof
the
mea
nsq
uar
eder
rors
,th
eem
pir
ical
cove
rage
pro
bab
ilit
ies
ofth
eem
pir
ical
quan
tile
boot
stra
pp
ointw
ise
95%
confiden
cein
terv
als
(B=
1000
boot
stra
pre
plica
tion
s)fo
rth
ees
tim
atio
nofP
[Y(t
)>y .
90(t
)]=
0.10
and
rela
tive
Root
MSE
att
=1.
0,2.
0,...,
10.0
over
1000
sim
ula
ted
sam
ple
.T
he
smoot
hin
g-la
ter
loca
llinea
res
tim
ator
sbas
edon
the
tim
e-va
ryin
gG
auss
ian
model
are
show
nin
the
left
pan
el.
The
kern
eles
tim
ator
sbas
edon
the
unst
ruct
ure
dnon
par
amet
ric
model
are
show
nin
the
righ
tpan
el.
The
Epan
echnik
ovke
rnel
and
the
LT
CV
ban
dw
idthh
=2.
5ar
euse
dfo
ral
lth
esm
oot
hin
ges
tim
ator
s.
Str
uct
ura
lN
onpar
amet
ric
Model
Unst
ruct
ure
dN
onpar
amet
ric
Model
Tim
eE
stim
ate
Ave
.Bia
s√MSE
Cov
erag
eE
stim
ate
Ave
.Bia
s√MSE
Cov
erag
eR
elat
ive√MSE
10.
0998
-0.0
002
0.00
920.
935
0.09
98-0
.000
20.
0111
0.93
00.
8288
20.
1005
0.00
050
0.00
950.
935
0.10
040.
0004
0.01
160.
940
0.81
903
0.10
030.
0003
00.
0091
0.91
50.
1003
0.00
030.
0113
0.89
00.
8053
40.
1000
0.00
000
0.00
930.
935
0.10
000.
0000
0.01
130.
925
0.82
305
0.09
99-0
.000
10.
0092
0.94
0.10
000.
0000
0.01
150.
945
0.80
006
0.10
040.
0004
00.
0092
0.92
0.10
060.
0006
0.01
120.
920
0.82
147
0.10
010.
0001
00.
0093
0.94
50.
1000
0.00
000.
0117
0.90
50.
7949
80.
1002
0.00
020
0.00
900.
940.
1002
0.00
020.
0111
0.92
50.
8108
90.
1000
0.00
000
0.00
910.
915
0.09
99-0
.000
10.
0113
0.92
50.
8053
100.
1002
0.00
020
0.01
100.
925
0.10
030.
0003
0.01
400.
915
0.78
57
39
Tab
le3:
Ave
rage
sof
esti
mat
es,
aver
ages
ofth
ebia
ses,
the
squar
ero
otof
the
mea
nsq
uar
eder
rors
,th
eem
pir
ical
cove
rage
pro
bab
ilit
ies
ofth
eem
pir
ical
quan
tile
boot
stra
pp
ointw
ise
95%
confiden
cein
terv
als
(B=
1000
boot
stra
pre
plica
tion
s)fo
rth
ees
tim
atio
nofP
[Y(t
)>y .
90(t
)]=
0.05
and
rela
tive
Root
MSE
att
=1.
0,2.
0,...,
10.0
over
1000
sim
ula
ted
sam
ple
.T
he
smoot
hin
g-la
ter
loca
llinea
res
tim
ator
sbas
edon
the
tim
e-va
ryin
gG
auss
ian
model
are
show
nin
the
left
pan
el.
The
kern
eles
tim
ator
sbas
edon
the
unst
ruct
ure
dnon
par
amet
ric
model
are
show
nin
the
righ
tpan
el.
The
Epan
echnik
ovke
rnel
and
the
LT
CV
ban
dw
idthh
=2.
5ar
euse
dfo
ral
lth
esm
oot
hin
ges
tim
ator
s.
Str
uct
ura
lN
onpar
amet
ric
Model
Unst
ruct
ure
dN
onpar
amet
ric
Model
Tim
eE
stim
ate
Ave
.Bia
s√MSE
Cov
erag
eE
stim
ate
Ave
.Bia
s√MSE
Cov
erag
eR
elat
ive√MSE
10.
0499
-0.0
001
0.00
610.
915
0.04
99-0
.000
10.
0081
0.91
50.
7531
20.
0504
0.00
040.
0063
0.93
50.
0504
0.00
040.
0085
0.93
00.
7412
30.
0502
0.00
020.
0061
0.90
00.
0504
0.00
040.
0081
0.88
50.
7531
40.
0500
0.00
000.
0061
0.94
00.
0497
-0.0
003
0.00
840.
920
0.72
625
0.05
00-0
.000
0.00
620.
925
0.04
98-0
.000
20.
0084
0.93
00.
7381
60.
0505
0.00
020.
0061
0.91
50.
0503
0.00
030.
0081
0.88
50.
7531
70.
0501
0.00
010.
0062
0.94
50.
0499
-0.0
001
0.00
820.
905
0.75
618
0.05
020.
0002
0.00
600.
960
0.05
020.
0002
0.00
800.
925
0.75
009
0.05
000.
0000
0.00
600.
910
0.05
010.
0001
0.00
830.
915
0.72
2910
0.05
020.
0002
0.00
730.
935
0.05
000.
0000
0.01
020.
915
0.71
57
40
4 Chapter Four
Asymptotic Results
We establish in this section the asymptotic bias, variance and mean squared errors
(MSE) of the smoothing-later local polynomial estimator F(q)t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x] of (6). Be-
cause the smoothing-early estimator Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x] of (5) is a function of the two-step
local polynomial estimator θ(t|x) and the asymptotic properties of θ(t|x) have been
established in Fan and Zhang (2000), the asymptotic properties of θ(t|x) are not pre-
sented here in order to avoid redundancy. The asymptotic bias, variance and MSE
of Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x] can be derived by applying the delta method to the asymptotic
results of θ(t|x) (e.g., van der Vaart, 1998, Ch 3). Asymptotic distribution of θ(t|x)
and Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x] have been derived under the Gaussian model assumption.
4.1 Asymptotic Properties of the Raw Estimators
Following Section 3.1, θ(tj|x) at each of the time design point tj ∈ t is estimated
by the MLE θ(tj|x), and the raw estimator of Ftj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x] is Ftj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x].Suppose that the classical regularity conditions of the MLEs, i.e., the conditions of
Theorem 5.41 of van der Vaart (1998), are satisfied. Then, for all tj ∈ t, n1/2j
[θ(tj|x)−
θ(tj|x)]
has asymptotically the N(0, I−1(θ(tj|x)
)distribution, where I
[θ(tj|x)
]is
the Fisher information matrix at θ(tj|x). It follows that θ(tj|x) is asymptotically
unbiased for θ(tj|x), i.e., E[θ(tj|x)
]= θ(tj|x) and the asymptotic variance of θ(tj|x)
is n−1j I−1
[θ(tj|x)
].
At different time points tj 6= tk, θ(tj)
and θ(tk) are possibly correlated, and the
41
covariance Cov[θ(tj|x), θ(tk|x)
]may depend on the design and unknown correlation
structure of the longitudinal sample. If Cov[θ(tj|x), θ(tk|x)
]has the convergence rate
r(nj, nk, njk
), which depends on the numbers of subjects observed at tj and tk, the
asymptotic expression of Cov[θ(tj|x), θ(tk|x)
]can be written as
limn→∞
r(nj, nk, njk
)Cov
[θ(tj|x), θ(tk|x)
]= ρθ
(tj, tk|x
), (14)
for some limiting function ρθ(tj, tk|x
). Since the correlation structure of the longi-
tudinal sample is unknown, the exact expression of ρθ(tj, tk|x
)is unknown, while it
is known that ρθ(tj, tk|x
)is bounded for all (tj, tk) and may depend on the model
Fθ(t|x), the expression of θ(t|x) at t = tj and tk, and the distance tj − tk = djk.
By the delta method and Theorem 5.41 of van der Vaart (1998), it follows the
asymptotic properties of θ(tj|x) that, as n→∞,
E{Ftj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x]}− Ftj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x] = o(n−1/2j
)njV ar
{Ftj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x]}→ F ′tj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x]T I−1[θ(tj|x)
]F ′tj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x]r(nj, nk, njk
)Cov
{Ftj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x], Ftk,θ(tk|x)
[y(tk)
∣∣x]}→ ρF(tj, tk|x
), j 6= k,
(15)
and n1/2j
{Ftj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x] − Ftj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x]} has asymptotically the normal dis-
tribution with mean 0 and variance F ′tj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x]T I−1[θ(tj|x)
]F ′tj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x],where F ′tj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x] is the column vector of partial derivatives of Ftj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x]with respect to θ(tj|x), and the bounded limiting covariance function ρF
(tj, tk|x
)de-
pend on the unknown covariance ρθ(tj, tk|x
). When θ(tj) represents the parameters
of a Gaussion model, we have θ(tj) = (µ(tj), σ2(tj))T . Asymptotic distributions of
µ(tj) and σ2(tj) are respectively given as
√n(tj)(µ(tj)− µ(tj)) ∼ N(0, σ2(tj))√
n(tj)(σ2(tj)− σ2(tj)) ∼√n(tj)(S
2(tj)− σ2(tj)) ∼ N(0, 2σ4(tj))
42
Where S2(tj) =∑
(Yi(tj)−Y (tj))2
n(tj)−1
If n is large, σ2(tj) =∑
(Yi(tj)−Y (tj))2
n(tj)and S2(tj) =
∑(Yi(tj)−Y (tj))
2
n(tj)−1are equivalent.
When Ftj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x] is a normal CDF, the asymptotic distribution of its esti-
mator is as follows: After plugging the MLEs of µ(tj) and σ2(tj) on Ftj ,θ(tj)[y(tj)|tj]
and doing some algebraic manipulation, we have
Ftj ,θ(tj)[y(tj)|x] = Ftj ,θ(tj)[y(tj)|x]
=
∫ y(tj)
−∞
exp
[−(y(tj)−y(tj))
2
2(y(tj)2−y(tj)2)
]√
2π
√y(tj)
2 − y(tj)2dy(tj)
= h[y(tj), y2(tj)].
Let α1(tj) = E[y(tj)] and α2(tj) = E[y2(tj)]. By the multivariate delta method, we
First and second order derivatives of h with respect to α′s are straightforward com-
putation (Theorem 8.16, Lehmann and Casella, 1998).
4.2 Asymptotic Properties of the Smoothing Estimators:
We assume the following asymptotic assumptions for the two-step local polynomial
estimators F(q)t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)|x
]= F
(q)
t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)|x
]given in (6):
43
A1. If n→∞, then h→ 0, n1/2hp−q+1 →∞, Jh→∞, and nJh2q+1 →∞.
A2. The design time points {t1, t2, . . . , tJ} are independent and identically distributed
with density function g(t). For all 1 ≤ j ≤ J , 1 ≤ j1 ≤ J and 1 ≤ j2 ≤ J
with j1 6= j2, there are known constants 0 < cj ≤ 1 and 0 < cj1j2 ≤ 1 such that
limn→∞(nj/n) = cj and limn→∞(nj1j2/n) = cj1j2 .
A3. The conditional CDFs Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)|x
]are p+1 times continuously differentiable
with respect to t.
A4. The kernel function K(·) is a bounded symmetric probability density function
with support within a bounded set [−a, a] for some a > 0.
A5. There is a δ which may tend to 0 as n → ∞, such that the visit times of the
subjects satisfy∣∣tij − ti,j−1
∣∣ > δ for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n and j = 2, . . . ,mi. If δ < ah,
the convergence rate r(nj, nk, njk) and the bandwidth h satisfy the relationship∑Jj=1
∑k:δ≤|tk−tj |≤ah r(nj, nk, njk) = o(Jh) when n is sufficiently large.
Assumptions A1-A4 are similar to the asymptotic conditions used in the estima-
tion of conditional distribution functions with longitudinal data, such as Wu, Tian and
Yu (2010) and Wu and Tian (2013a, 2013b). Assumption A5 is specifically motivated
by the designs of practical longitudinal studies, such as the NGHS, in which there is
usually a prespecified gap δ between the visiting times of the same subject. Although
the assumption of∑J
j=1
∑k:δ≤|tk−tj |≤ah r(nj, nk, njk) = o(Jh) does not appear to be
intuitive, Assumption A5 suggests that, when |tj − tk| is close to zero, the number
of subjects having measurements at both tj and tk, i.e., njk, is small, which leads to
small correlation between the raw estimates Ftj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)
∣∣x] and Ftk,θ(tk|x)
[y(tk)
∣∣x].Let Kq,p+1(t) = eTq,p+1S
−1(1, t, . . . , tp
)TK(t) be the equivalent kernel of local poly-
nomial fit with S =(skl)k,l=0,1,...,p
and skl =∫K(u)uk+ldu, Bp+1(K) =
∫K(u)up+1du
44
and V (K) =∫K2(u)du. The next theorem summarizes the asymptotic expressions
of the bias, variance and mean squared errors of F(q)
t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)|x
].
Theorem 1. Suppose that the Assumptions A1-A5 are satisfied with c = cj and
the asymptotic mean, variance and covariance of the raw estimator Ftj ,θ(tj |x)
[y(tj)|x
]for j = 1, . . . , J are given by (15). When n is sufficiently large,
Bias{F
(q)t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]} = E{F
(q)t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]}− F (q)t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x] (16)
=q!hp−q+1
p+ 1F
(p+1)t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)|x
]Bp+1
(Kq,p+1
)[1 + op(1)
],
V ar{F
(q)t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]} =(q!)2
cnJh2q+1g(t)V(Kq,p+1
)(17)
×F ′t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]T I−1[θ(t|x)
]F ′t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x][1 + op(1)]
and the asymptotic expression of the mean squared error (MSE)
MSE{F
(q)t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]} = Bias{F
(q)t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]}2+ V ar
{F
(q)t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]}, (18)
is given by substituting Bias{F
(q)t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]} and V ar{F
(q)t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]} of (18) with
the right sides of (16) and (17), respectively.
Proof. See Appendix A2.
Remark 4.1. Special cases of Theorem 1 can be easily derived from (16), (17)
and (18). For the local linear estimator of Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]}, we have q = 0 and p = 1,
so that the asymptotic MSE of Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]} is
MSE{Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]} ={h4B2(t|x) + h−1(nJ)−1V(t|x)
}[1 + op(1)
], (19)
45
where B(t|x) = F ′′t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)|x
]B2
(K0,2
)/2 and
V(t|x) =[cg(t)
]−1V(K0,2
)F ′t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]T I−1[θ(t|x)
]F ′t,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x].Setting ∂MSE
{Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]}/∂h to zero, the theoretically optimal bandwidth hopt
which minimizes the dominating term at the right side of (19) is
hopt = (nJ)−1/5[V(t|x)
]1/5[4B2(t|x)
]−1/5.
Substituting hopt into (19), the MSE of the local linear estimator Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]} is
MSE{Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x];hopt} = (nJ)−4/5[V(t|x)
]4/5[B(t|x)]2/5(
2−8/5 + 22/5), (20)
which suggests that the optimal rate for the MSE of Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]} to converge to
zero is (nJ)4/5.
Remark 4.2. By Assumption A5, the covariances of the raw estimators do not
affect the asymptotic MSE of the smoothing estimator Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x]. In many
practical situations, the visit times of the same subject are set to be larger than a
fixed value, so that δ > 0 is fixed. It can be seen from the proof of Theorem 1 (A.2 of
Appendix) that the contribution of the covariances of the raw estimators to the MSE
of Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x] is ignorable because of the local smoothing nature of Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x].The assumption that δ > 0 is fixed is appropriate for the NGHS, since the actual visit
times for each subject of NGHS are at least 6 months apart.
46
5 Chapter Five
5.1 Time-Varying Models with Locally Transformed Vari-
ables
Our method is applied to the NGHS BP data to evaluate the conditional CDF of
SBP for African American girls, Caucasian girls and entire cohort and their trends
over ages 9 to 19 years old. We also apply local linear smoothing estimators to
get the smoothing estimates of the conditional CDF on entire time design points.
When the variable of interest is locally transformed, we can use only smoothing-
later local linear smoothing estimator. In many instances, it has been seen that
locally transformed variables show more stability in the sense of normality than a
global transformation on the subsamples partitioned over time design points. NGHS
is a multicenter population-based cohort study designed to evaluate the prevalence
and incidence of cardiovascular risk factors in Caucasian and African-American girls
during childhood and adolescence. This study included 1166 Caucasian and 1213
African American girls for follow-up visits with the summary statistics as: a range
from 1 to 10 visits, median 9, mean 8.2 and standard deviation 2. Among all the
important risk factors that have been studied by the NGHS investigators, childhood
systolic blood pressure (SBP) is an important one.
Because the entry age starts at 9, the observed age in our analysis is limited
to T = [9.1, 19] and rounded up to first decimal point. This age round-up has the
required clinical accuracy for age (Obarzanek et al.,2010), which leads to J=100
distinct time-design points {t1 = 9.1, t2 = 9.2, . . . t100 = 19}. According to this time
design points, the entire NGHS data has been partitioned to 100 subsamples. The
47
first subsample corresponding to age 9.1 includes all girls that are in the age interval
[9, 9.1) and so on for the rest of the subsamples. The last subsample with age 19
includes all girls that are in the age interval [18.9, 19). In our preliminary analysis
based on the goodness-of-fit tests of normality for the SBP distributions at the time
design points{t1, t2, . . . , t100
}, we observed that the conditional distributions of the
Box-Cox transformed SBP given age and race can be reasonably approximated by
normal distributions, while the conditional distributions of the actual SBP given age
and race are not approximately normal. Thus, for a given 1 ≤ j ≤ J = 100 and
i ∈ Sj, we denote by Yi(tj) the Box-Cox transformed SBP observation of the ith
girl at age tj. The time-invariant categorical covariate Xi is race, which is defined
by Xi = 0 if the ith girl is Caucasian, and Xi = 1 if she is African-American. The
random variables for the Box-Cox transformed SBP at age t and race are Y (t) and X,
respectively. Given t and X = x, we consider the family of Power Normal Distribution
(PN) of SBP for this population of girls, that is, the conditional CDF of Y (t) is given
by the normal distributions Ft,θ(t|x)
[y(t)
∣∣x] of (2).
Box-Cox transformation is applied on Z(t) for normality. This transformation is
known as the local Box-Cox as λ(t) varies at different time points. The parameter
λ(t) is estimated by Maximum Likelihood method which takes values in the closed
interval [-2 , 2]. When λ(t) = 0, a log transformation is considered. The local Box-Cox
transformation on Z(t) at time point t is given by
Y (t) =
Zλ(t)(t)−1
λ(t)if λ(t) 6= 0,
log(Z(t)) if λ(t) = 0.
In a series of preliminary goodness-of-fit tests of normality for SBP, such as the
Shapiro-Wilk test, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the Anderson-Darling test, the
48
Cramer-Von-Mises test as well as visual inspections of the QQ plots, we have seen
that 96 of 100 subsamples follow normal distribution by Shapiro-Wilk test, 92 of 100
subsamples follow normal distribution by Anderson-Darling test, all 100 subsamples
follow normal distribution by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, 92 of 100 subsamples follow
normal distribution by Cramer-Von-Mises test. According to the above goodness-of-
fit tests, we can conclude that almost all subsamples are approximately normal. If
we apply the above normality tests on SBP when the data are extracted from the
original subsamples in such a way that individuals with more than median height are
only considered, then we see that only 2 of the 100 subsamples show nonnormality by
Shapiro-Wilk test, 4 of the 100 subsamples show nonnormality by Anderson-Darling
test and 2 of the 100 subsamples show nonnormality by Cramer-Von-Mises test. Kol-
mogorov results remain same as before.
For the goodness-of-fit tests, we have used 5% significance level. It is noteworthy to
mention that before splitting the NGHS longitudinal data, SBP is not normal. But if
we conduct a lognormality test, we have seen that SBP follows lognormal distribution.
Tabular representation of P-values, All estimated probabilities and QQ plots are ig-
nored to avoid redundancy for the Box-Cox transformed SBP. Applying the two-step
local linear estimator of (7) to the observed data{Yi(tj), Xi, tj; 1 ≤ j ≤ J, 1 ≤ i ≤ n
},
we compute the smoothing estimator Ft,θ(t|x)
[yq(t)
∣∣x] of Ft,θ(t|x)
[yq(t)
∣∣x], where yq(t)
is the Box-Cox transformed (100×q)th percentiles of SBP for girls with median height
at age t (NHBPEP, 2004). By the monotonicity of the transformation, Ft,θ(t|x)
[yq(t)
∣∣x]is also the conditional probability of SBP at or below the (100× q)th SBP percentile
given in NHBPEP (2004) for girls with age t and race x. In addition to the smoothing
estimators based on the time-varying normal distributions Ft,θ(t|x)
[yq(t)
∣∣x] in (2), we
also compute the kenrel estimator Ft[yq(t)
∣∣x] of the unstructured conditional CDF
Ft[yq(t)
∣∣x] of Y (t) based on (8) with the wi = 1/(nmi) or 1/N weights. Smoothing
49
estimators of these conditional probabilities are also computed for the entire cohort
ignoring the race covariate.
Figure 7 shows the local linear smoothing estimates 1−Ft,θ(t)[yq(t)
∣∣x] based on (7)
(q = 0.90 in Figure a; q = 0.95 in Figure c and q = .99 in Figure e), the unstructured
kernel estimators 1 − Ft[yq(t)
∣∣x] based on (8) with wi = 1/N (q = 0.90 in Figure
b; q = 0.95 in Figure d and q = .99 in Figure f), and their corresponding empirical
quantile bootstrap pointwise 95% confidence intervals based on B = 1000 bootstrap
replications for Caucasian girls (x = 0). The Epanechnikov kernel and the bandwidth
h = 2.5 were used for both the local linear smoothing estimators and the unstructured
kernel estimators. The bandwidth of h = 2.5 was chosen by examining the LSCV
and LTCV scores and the smoothness of the fitted plots.
Figure 8 shows the local linear smoothing estimates 1 − Ft,θ(t|x)
[yq(t)
∣∣x] (a, c,
e), the unstructured kernel estimators 1 − Ft[yq(t)
∣∣x] with wi = 1/N (b, d, f), and
their corresponding empirical quantile bootstrap pointwise 95% confidence intervals
based on B = 1000 bootstrap replications for African-American girls (x = 1) with
q = 0.90, 0.95 and .99. Similar to Figure 7, the estimators of Figure 8 are based on
the Epanechnikov kernel and the bandwidth h = 2.5.
Figure 9 shows the local linear smoothing estimates 1 − Ft,θ(t|x)
[yq(t)
∣∣x] (a, c,
e), the unstructured kernel estimators 1 − Ft[yq(t)
∣∣x] with wi = 1/N (b, d, f), and
their corresponding empirical quantile bootstrap pointwise 95% confidence intervals
based on B = 1000 bootstrap replications for entire cohort with q = 0.90, 0.95 and
.99. Similar to Figure 7 and Figure 8, the estimators of Figure 9 are based on the
Epanechnikov kernel and the bandwidth h = 2.5.
50
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
a. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.9(t))at Median height by SNM
Ages of CC girls
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
b. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.9(t))at Median height by UNM
Ages of CC girls
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
c. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.95(t))at Median height by SNM
Ages of CC girls
P(Y
>y 0
.95(
t))
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
d. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.95(t))at Median height by UNM
Ages of CC girls
P(Y
>y 0
.95(
t))
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
e. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.99(t))at Median height by SNM
Ages of CC girls
P(Y
>y 0
.99(
t))
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
f. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.99(t))at Median height by UNM
Ages of CC girls
P(Y
>y 0
.99(
t))
Figure 7: Raw estimators (scatter plots), smoothing estimators (solid curves), andbootstrap pointwise 95% confidence intervals (dashed curves, B = 1000 bootstrapreplications) of the age specific probabilities of SBP greater than the 90th, 95th and99th population SBP percentiles for Caucasian girls (CC) between 9.1 and 19.0 yearsold. (a),(c),(e): Estimators based on the time-varying Gaussian models. (b),(d),(f):Estimators based on the unstructured kernel estimators.
51
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
a. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.9(t))at Median height by SNM
Ages of AA girls
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
b. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.9(t))at Median height by UNM
Ages of AA girls
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
c. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.95(t))at Median height by SNM
Ages of AA girls
P(Y
>y 0
.95(
t))
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
d. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.95(t))at Median height by UNM
Ages of AA girls
P(Y
>y 0
.95(
t))
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
e. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.99(t))at Median height by SNM
Ages of AA girls
P(Y
>y 0
.99(
t))
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
f. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.99(t))at Median height by UNM
Ages of AA girls
P(Y
>y 0
.99(
t))
Figure 8: Raw estimators (scatter plots), smoothing estimators (solid curves), andbootstrap pointwise 95% confidence intervals (dashed curves, B = 1000 bootstrapreplications) of the age specific probabilities of SBP greater than the 90th, 95th and99th population SBP percentiles for African American girls (CC) between 9.1 and19.0 years old. (a),(c),(e): Estimators based on the time-varying Gaussian models.(b),(d),(f): Estimators based on the unstructured kernel estimators.
52
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
a. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.9(t))at Median height by SNM
Ages of all girls
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
b. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.9(t))at Median height by UNM
Ages of all girls
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
c. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.95(t))at Median height by SNM
Ages of all girls
P(Y
>y 0
.95(
t))
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
d. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.95(t))at Median height by UNM
Ages of all girls
P(Y
>y 0
.95(
t))
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
e. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.99(t))at Median height by SNM
Ages of all girls
P(Y
>y 0
.99(
t))
10 12 14 16 18
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
f. Age vs P(Y(t) > y0.99(t))at Median height by UNM
Ages of all girls
P(Y
>y 0
.99(
t))
Figure 9: Raw estimators (scatter plots), smoothing estimators (solid curves), andbootstrap pointwise 95% confidence intervals (dashed curves, B = 1000 bootstrapreplications) of the age specific probabilities of SBP greater than the 90th, 95thand 99th population SBP percentiles for entire cohort between 9.1 and 19.0 yearsold. (a),(c),(e): Estimators based on the time-varying Gaussian models. (b),(d),(f):Estimators based on the unstructured kernel estimators.
53
5.2 Simulation Results
For the simulation design, we generate in each sample n=1000 subjects with 10 visits
per subject according to the data structure of NGHS and Section 1.2. The jth visit
time of the ith subject tij is generated from the uniform distribution U(j − 1, j) for
for j = 1, ..., 10. Given each tij, we generate the observations Yij for Y(t) from the
following simulation design:
Yij = 210 + 28(tij − 5)− 2(tij − 5)2 + a0i + εij,
a0i ∼ N(0, (3)2), εij ∼ N(0, (0.9)2)
where εij are independent for all (i, j), and a0i and εij are independent. For the above
design, we have E(Yij|tij) = 210 + 28(tij − 5) − 2(tij − 5)2, V ar(Yij|tij) = 9.81. For
each simulated sample{(Yi(tij), tij
): i = 1, . . . , 1000; j = 1, . . . , 10
}, we round up the
time points so that each tij belongs to one of the equally spaced time design points
{t0, . . . , t100} = {0, 0.1, 0.2, . . . , 10}. Let yq(t) be the (100 × q)th percentile of Y (t).
It follows that P [Y (t) > yq(t)] = q. More Specifically, let y.90(t), y.95(t) and y.99(t)
are the 90th, 95th and 99th quantiles of Y(t). Since Y(t) follows normal distribution,
hence P [Y (t) > y.90(t)] = .10, P [Y (t) > y.95(t)] = .05 and P [Y (t) > y.95(t)] = .01.
Our theoretical 90th, 95th and 99th quantiles for 10 different time points from 101
different time points for the above model are given in Table 4.
54
Tab
le4:
Theo
reti
cal
90th
,95
than
d99
thquan
tile
sfo
r10
diff
eren
tti
me
poi
nts
out
of10
1diff
eren
tti
me
poi
nts
from
the
model
ofou
rsi
mula
tion
des
ign.
Tim
e(t)
12
34
56
78
910
Y.9
0(t
)70
.01
112.
0115
0.01
184.
0121
4.01
240.
0126
2.01
280.
0129
4.01
304.
01Y.9
5(t
)71
.15
113.
1515
1.15
185.
1521
5.15
241.
1526
3.15
281.
1529
5.15
305.
15Y.9
9(t
)73
.29
115.
2915
3.29
187.
2921
7.29
243.
2926
5.29
283.
2929
7.29
307.
29
55
We repeatedly generate 1000 simulation samples. Within each simulation sample,
we compute the smoothing estimates of P [Y (t) > yq(t)] for q = 0.90, 0.95, 0.99
by the local linear estimator (7) based on the time-varying Gaussian model (2) and
the unstructured kernel estimator (8) using the Epanechnikov kernel and the LTCV
bandwidths. The bootstrap pointwise 95% confidence intervals for the smoothing
estimators are constructed using empirical quantiles of B = 1000 bootstrap samples.
For each simulated sample {(Yij, tij) : i = 1, ..., 1000; j = 1, ...., 10} , we round up
the time points so that each tij belongs to one of the equally spaced time points
{t0, ....., t101} = {0, 0.1, 0.2, ...., 10} . We then compute the smoothing estimates of
P.90(t) = P [Y (t) > y.90(t)|t],
P.95(t) = P [Y (t) > y.95(t)|t],
P.99(t) = P [Y (t) > y.99(t)|t].
from estimators from both structural nonparametric models and unstructured non-
parametric models. The 95% point-wise bootstrap confidence bands for this condi-
tional probability are constructed with B=1000 simulated samples. Figure 10 and
Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 represent the results of our simulation study in pictorial
and tabular form. From Figure 10, we see that smoothing estimators from unstruc-
tured nonparametric model gives wider confidence bands than the estimators from
the structural nonparametric model (Gaussian Model) when smoothing estimates of
the conditional probability for top 10%, top 5% and 1% are computed. Numerical
results of the average estimates, average bias, average root MSE and confidence in-
terval coverage probability are given in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 respectively for
top 10%, top 5% and top 1% . Root MSE of SNM for each time point is smaller
than the Root MSE of UNM and consequently relative root MSE at each time point
is smaller than 1, which means that SNM is better than UNM. From the Table 5,
Table 6 and Table 7, we also notice better results from the smoothing estimators of
56
SNM when extreme tail probabilities are estimated.
Let Pq(t) be a smoothing estimator of P [Y (t) > yq(t)] = q, which could be
either the local polynomial estimator of (7), or the unstructured kernel estimator of
(8). We measure the accuracy of Pq(t) by the average of the bias∑M
m=1
[Pq(t) −
q]/M , the empirical mean squared error MSE
[Pq(t)
]=∑M
m=1
[Pq(t) − q
]2/M or
the square root of MSE[Pq(t)
](root-MSE), where M = 1000 is the total number
of simulated samples. We assess the accuracy of a pointwise confidence interval of
Pq(t) by the empirical coverage probability of the confidence interval covering the
true value P [Y (t) > yq(t)] = q.
Table 5 shows averages of estimates, the averages of the biases, the root-MSEs,
and the empirical coverage probabilities of the empirical quantile bootstrap pointwise
95% confidence intervals based on B = 1000 bootstrap replications for the estimation
of P [Y (t) > y.90(t)] = 0.10 at t = 1.0, 2.0, . . . , 10.0. For all the 10 time points, the
smoothing-later local linear estimators based on the time-varying Gaussian model
have smaller root-MSEs than the kernel estimators based on the unstructured non-
parametric model. Comparing the empirical coverage probabilities of the bootstrap
pointwise 95% confidence intervals, we observe that the smoothing estimators based
on the time-varying Gaussian model have higher coverage probabilities than the un-
structured kernel estimators at most of the time points.
When q increases to 0.95 and 0.99, Table 6 and Table 7 shows the averages of the
estimates, averages of the biases, the root-MSEs, and the empirical coverage proba-
bilities of the empirical quantile bootstrap pointwise 95% confidence intervals based
on B = 1000 bootstrap replications for the estimation of P [Y (t) > y.95(t)] = 0.05
at t = 1.0, 2.0, . . . , 10.0. Again, the smoothing estimators based on the time-varying
Gaussian model have smaller root-MSEs than the unstructured kernel estimators at
all 10 time points.
57
From Figure 10, if we compare (a) with (b), (c) with (d) and (e) with (f) we see
that smoothing estimators from the unstructured nonparametric models gives wider
confidence bands than the smoothing estimators from the structural nonparametric
models. The simulation results of Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 also suggest that, when
the time-varying parametric model is appropriate, the structural two-step smoothing
estimators have smaller mean squared errors than the unstructured smoothing esti-
mators under a practical longitudinal sample with moderate sample sizes. However,
these results may not hold if the time-varying parametric model is not an appropriate
approximation to the time-varying distribution functions of the longitudinal variable
being considered. Looking at the Relative√MSE of Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7,
we see that as q increases, the Relative√MSE decreases, which means that smooth-
ing estimates of extreme tail probabilities by existing unstructured kernel method is
extremely inefficient and misleading when data sets at different time points follow a
parametric family.
58
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.00
0.10
0.20
a. Age vs P(Y > y0.9(t))by SNM
Age
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.00
0.10
0.20
b. Age vs P(Y > y0.9(t))by UNM
Age
P(Y
>y 0
.9(t)
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
c. Age vs P(Y > y0.95(t))by SNM
Age
P(Y
>y 0
.95(
t))
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
d. Age vs P(Y > y0.95(t))by UNM
Age
P(Y
>y 0
.95(
t))
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.00
0.02
0.04
e. Age vs P(Y > y0.99(t))by SNM
Age
P(Y
>y 0
.99(
t))
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.00
0.02
0.04
f. Age vs P(Y > y0.99(t))by UNM
Age
P(Y
>y 0
.99(
t))
Figure 10: Black solid line is local linear (a,c,e) and Nadaraya-Watson (b,d,f) smooth-ing estimators with Epanechnikov kernel and bandwidth 2.5. Dotted lines representthe 95% pointwise bootstrap confidence band for 1000 simulated samples.
59
Tab
le5:
Ave
rage
sof
esti
mat
es,
aver
ages
ofth
ebia
ses,
the
squar
ero
otof
the
mea
nsq
uar
eder
rors
,th
eem
pir
ical
cove
rage
pro
bab
ilit
ies
ofth
eem
pir
ical
quan
tile
boot
stra
pp
ointw
ise
95%
confiden
cein
terv
als
(B=
1000
boot
stra
pre
plica
tion
s)fo
rth
ees
tim
atio
nofP
[Y(t
)>y .
90(t
)]=
0.10
and
rela
tive
Root
MSE
att
=1.
0,2.
0,...,
10.0
over
1000
sim
ula
ted
sam
ple
.T
he
smoot
hin
g-la
ter
loca
llinea
res
tim
ator
sbas
edon
the
tim
e-va
ryin
gG
auss
ian
model
are
show
nin
the
left
pan
el.
The
kern
eles
tim
ator
sbas
edon
the
unst
ruct
ure
dnon
par
amet
ric
model
are
show
nin
the
righ
tpan
el.
The
Epan
echnik
ovke
rnel
and
the
LT
CV
ban
dw
idthh
=2.
5ar
euse
dfo
ral
lth
esm
oot
hin
ges
tim
ator
s.
Str
uct
ura
lN
onpar
amet
ric
Model
Unst
ruct
ure
dN
onpar
amet
ric
Model
Tim
eE
stim
ate
Ave
.Bia
s√MSE
Cov
erag
eE
stim
ate
Ave
.Bia
s√MSE
Cov
erag
eR
elat
ive√MSE
10.
0986
-0.0
014
0.02
470.
948
0.09
84-0
.001
60.
0306
0.95
0.80
5670
133
20.
1002
0.00
020.
0243
0.94
70.
0995
-0.0
005
0.03
190.
952
0.76
1484
532
30.
0998
-0.0
002
0.02
440.
948
0.09
91-0
.000
90.
0306
0.95
70.
7978
7585
44
0.10
100.
0010
0.02
520.
948
0.10
130.
0013
0.03
240.
951
0.77
7396
196
50.
1010
0.00
100.
0244
0.95
80.
1002
0.00
020.
0307
0.94
30.
7943
6251
56
0.09
88-0
.001
20.
0238
0.94
80.
0988
-0.0
012
0.03
060.
947
0.77
8519
871
70.
1013
0.00
130.
0248
0.94
80.
1014
0.00
140.
0317
0.94
20.
7832
0848
80.
0991
-0.0
009
0.02
390.
948
0.09
89-0
.001
10.
0302
0.95
20.
7902
4193
19
0.10
070.
0007
0.02
420.
949
0.10
080.
0008
0.03
130.
954
0.77
1904
612
100.
0986
-0.0
014
0.03
400.
950.
0983
-0.0
017
0.04
300.
955
0.79
0419
587
60
Tab
le6:
Ave
rage
sof
the
bia
ses,
the
squar
ero
otof
the
mea
nsq
uar
eder
rors
,an
dth
eem
pir
ical
cove
rage
pro
bab
ilit
ies
ofth
eem
pir
ical
quan
tile
boot
stra
pp
ointw
ise
95%
confiden
cein
terv
als
(B=
1000
boot
stra
pre
plica
tion
s)fo
rth
ees
tim
atio
nof
P[Y
(t)>y .
95(t
)]=
0.05
att
=1.
0,2.
0,...,
10.0
over
1000
sim
ula
ted
sam
ple
.T
he
smoot
hin
g-la
ter
loca
llinea
res
tim
ator
sbas
edon
the
tim
e-va
ryin
gG
auss
ian
model
are
show
nin
the
left
pan
el.
The
kern
eles
tim
ator
sbas
edon
the
unst
ruct
ure
dnon
par
amet
ric
model
are
show
nin
the
righ
tpan
el.
The
Epan
echnik
ovke
rnel
and
the
LT
CV
ban
dw
idthh
=2.
5ar
euse
dfo
ral
lth
esm
oot
hin
ges
tim
ator
s.
Str
uct
ura
lN
onpar
amet
ric
Model
Unst
ruct
ure
dN
onpar
amet
ric
Model
Tim
eE
stim
ate
Ave
.Bia
s√MSE
Cov
erag
eE
stim
ate
Ave
.Bia
s√MSE
Cov
erag
eR
elat
ive√MSE
10.
0497
-0.0
003
70.0
165
0.94
90.
0486
-0.0
014
0.02
230.
959
0.73
8030
611
20.
0506
0.00
060.
0162
0.94
50.
0497
-0.0
003
0.02
310.
960.
7013
2229
13
0.05
030.
0003
0.01
620.
955
0.05
000.
0000
0.02
110.
963
0.76
8899
154
40.
0513
0.00
130.
0170
0.94
90.
0503
0.00
030.
0222
0.95
10.
7679
902
50.
0512
0.00
120.
0165
0.96
20.
0502
0.00
020.
0230
0.95
80.
7193
7884
16
0.04
96-0
.000
40.
0158
0.95
90.
0488
-0.0
012
0.02
210.
960.
7117
8465
57
0.05
140.
0014
0.01
670.
950.
0515
0.00
150.
0233
0.96
10.
7158
9335
80.
0499
-0.0
001
0.01
600.
952
0.04
94-0
.000
60.
0214
0.94
90.
7465
0521
69
0.05
090.
0009
0.01
620.
957
0.05
050.
0005
0.02
230.
959
0.72
5402
593
100.
0499
-0.0
001
0.02
260.
955
0.04
84-0
.001
60.
0312
0.96
50.
7228
7276
61
Tab
le7:
Ave
rage
sof
the
bia
ses,
the
squar
ero
otof
the
mea
nsq
uar
eder
rors
,an
dth
eem
pir
ical
cove
rage
pro
bab
ilit
ies
ofth
eem
pir
ical
quan
tile
boot
stra
pp
ointw
ise
95%
confiden
cein
terv
als
(B=
1000
boot
stra
pre
plica
tion
s)fo
rth
ees
tim
atio
nof
P[Y
(t)>y .
99(t
)]=
0.01
att
=1.
0,2.
0,...,
10.0
over
1000
sim
ula
ted
sam
ple
.T
he
smoot
hin
g-la
ter
loca
llinea
res
tim
ator
sbas
edon
the
tim
e-va
ryin
gG
auss
ian
model
are
show
nin
the
left
pan
el.
The
kern
eles
tim
ator
sbas
edon
the
unst
ruct
ure
dnon
par
amet
ric
model
are
show
nin
the
righ
tpan
el.
The
Epan
echnik
ovke
rnel
and
the
LT
CV
ban
dw
idthh
=2.
5ar
euse
dfo
ral
lth
esm
oot
hin
ges
tim
ator
s.
Str
uct
ura
lN
onpar
amet
ric
Model
Unst
ruct
ure
dN
onpar
amet
ric
Model
Tim
eE
stim
ate
Ave
.Bia
s√MSE
Cov
erag
eE
stim
ate
Ave
.Bia
s√MSE
Cov
erag
eR
elat
ive√MSE
10.
0104
0.00
040.
0056
0.94
80.
0097
-0.0
003
0.01
020.
951
0.54
2704
172
0.01
070.
0007
0.00
550.
947
0.01
020.
0002
0.01
000.
948
0.54
6403
262
30.
0105
0.00
050.
0054
0.94
20.
0100
0.00
000.
0100
0.94
70.
5431
7865
94
0.01
100.
0010
0.00
590.
948
0.01
040.
0004
0.01
030.
951
0.57
2775
648
50.
0109
0.00
090.
0057
0.94
90.
0102
0.00
020.
0101
0.94
70.
5676
1380
86
0.01
030.
0003
0.00
520.
952
0.00
99-0
.000
10.
0097
0.95
30.
5412
3299
87
0.01
090.
0009
0.00
570.
940.
0105
0.00
050.
0106
0.95
20.
5394
098
80.
0104
0.00
040.
0054
0.94
70.
0096
-0.0
004
0.00
970.
947
0.55
3963
269
0.01
080.
0008
0.00
550.
951
0.01
040.
0004
0.01
040.
948
0.52
9256
297
100.
0108
0.00
080.
0078
0.94
80.
0097
-0.0
003
0.01
460.
941
0.53
6028
584
62
6 Chapter Six
6.1 Discussion and Future Research
We have proposed a time varying structural nonparametric model to estimate the
conditional distribution functions in longitudinal study. Such method is usually ap-
propriate for a long term follow up studies, such as NGHS, which have a large number
of subjects and sufficient numbers of repeated measurements over time. This approach
has practical advantages over the well-established conditional-mean-based models in
longitudinal analysis when the scientific objective is better achieved by evaluating the
conditional distribution functions. Our application to NGHS SBP data demonstrate
that “estimating conditional distribution function by SNM” is a useful quantitative
measure to see the risk of developing hypertension over time for the adolescents. Al-
though our estimation of conditional distribution function by SNM does not include
any time variant covariates and limited to local polynomial smoothing estimator and
a specific set of asymptotic assumptions, they provide some useful insight into the
accuracy of the statistical results under different repeated measurement scenarios.
There are a number of theoretical and methodological aspects that warrant further
investigation. First , further theoretical and simulation studies are needed to investi-
gate the properties of other smoothing methods, such as global smoothing methods
through splines, wavelets and other basis approximations, and their corresponding
asymptotic inference procedures. Second, flexible conditional-distribution based sta-
tistical models incorporating both time-dependent and time-invariant covariates are
still not well-understood and need to be developed. Third, many longitudinal stud-
ies have multivariate outcome variables, so that appropriate statistical models and
63
estimation methods for multivariate conditional distribution functions deserve to be
systematically investigated. For our future research, we are interested to use copula
model to estimate the bivariate and multivariate conditional distribution function.
Incorporating continuous and time variant covariates in the estimating conditional
distribution functions can also be considered as our future research.
64
7 Appendix 1: Preliminary Analysis
Table 8: P-values for normality test of 100 data sets.
SW, AD, KS, CVM and ChiSq stand for Shapiro-Wilk
Test, Anderson Darling Test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test,
Cramer-Von-Mises Test and Chi Square Test respec-
tively.
Data Sets SW AD KS CVM Chisq
1 0.752 0.836 0.929 0.796 0.488
2 0.24 0.169 0.956 0.217 0.27
3 0.062 0.295 0.959 0.3 0.229
4 0.197 0.47 0.945 0.573 0.4
5 0.385 0.192 0.959 0.194 0.094
6 0.022 0.035 0.956 0.046 0.338
7 0.811 0.389 0.917 0.251 0.006
8 0.685 0.343 0.963 0.363 0.008
9 0.117 0.091 0.94 0.096 0.04
10 0.284 0.29 0.958 0.29 0.001
11 0.339 0.401 0.958 0.406 0.419
12 0.567 0.333 0.951 0.408 0.017
13 0.318 0.269 0.96 0.197 0.043
14 0.105 0.013 0.949 0.011 0
15 0.205 0.585 0.96 0.658 0.008
16 0.87 0.765 0.947 0.707 0.028
continued . . .
65
. . . continued
Data Sets SW AD KS CVM Chisq
17 0.059 0.102 0.951 0.195 0
18 0.548 0.236 0.948 0.224 0.006
19 0.288 0.117 0.956 0.099 0.004
20 0.369 0.198 0.955 0.181 0
21 0.359 0.197 0.914 0.18 0
22 0.577 0.38 0.952 0.363 0.106
23 0.308 0.325 0.937 0.35 0.075
24 0.324 0.268 0.954 0.224 0.003
25 0.477 0.488 0.944 0.456 0.021
26 0.473 0.096 0.961 0.057 0.006
27 0.122 0.082 0.93 0.058 0
28 0.298 0.095 0.93 0.073 0.049
29 0.318 0.098 0.939 0.061 0.001
30 0.55 0.476 0.96 0.493 0.129
31 0.083 0.023 0.955 0.017 0.012
32 0.423 0.248 0.948 0.216 0.448
33 0.742 0.485 0.942 0.408 0.012
34 0.373 0.141 0.961 0.092 0
35 0.043 0.019 0.887 0.013 0
36 0.074 0.009 0.955 0.009 0
37 0.137 0.035 0.947 0.027 0.013
38 0.525 0.448 0.963 0.405 0.039
39 0.552 0.465 0.946 0.503 0.398
continued . . .
66
. . . continued
Data Sets SW AD KS CVM Chisq
40 0.136 0.142 0.943 0.166 0
41 0.056 0.051 0.959 0.066 0.003
42 0.102 0.056 0.916 0.04 0
43 0.412 0.186 0.961 0.141 0
44 0.494 0.237 0.965 0.28 0.011
45 0.078 0.027 0.941 0.025 0.005
46 0.138 0.241 0.958 0.262 0.265
47 0.058 0.094 0.961 0.094 0.144
48 0.392 0.349 0.927 0.298 0.316
49 0.203 0.128 0.951 0.139 0.089
50 0.651 0.58 0.945 0.614 0.079
51 0.13 0.21 0.96 0.282 0
52 0.351 0.515 0.93 0.556 0.288
53 0.438 0.466 0.963 0.49 0.183
54 0.121 0.125 0.924 0.099 0.713
55 0.58 0.264 0.954 0.187 0.398
56 0.028 0.009 0.927 0.012 0.02
57 0.271 0.139 0.963 0.132 0.003
58 0.331 0.115 0.939 0.079 0.222
59 0.271 0.074 0.924 0.038 0.005
60 0.041 0.099 0.957 0.156 0.118
61 0.277 0.135 0.954 0.092 0.219
62 0.15 0.309 0.962 0.468 0.153
continued . . .
67
. . . continued
Data Sets SW AD KS CVM Chisq
63 0.793 0.551 0.943 0.404 0.629
64 0.07 0.033 0.962 0.061 0.001
65 0.45 0.298 0.903 0.243 0.285
66 0.78 0.77 0.957 0.768 0.877
67 0.691 0.591 0.942 0.646 0.677
68 0.185 0.244 0.947 0.335 0.038
69 0.088 0.036 0.951 0.044 0.001
70 0.687 0.567 0.955 0.637 0.111
71 0.482 0.383 0.962 0.476 0.497
72 0.543 0.54 0.957 0.634 0.969
73 0.85 0.772 0.962 0.653 0.421
74 0.149 0.082 0.914 0.08 0.099
75 0.262 0.379 0.937 0.277 0.613
76 0.001 0.022 0.915 0.044 0.323
77 0.001 0 0.966 0.001 0.061
78 0.592 0.549 0.962 0.548 0.326
79 0.339 0.507 0.905 0.419 0.811
80 0.253 0.117 0.961 0.112 0.254
81 0.038 0.285 0.904 0.338 0.733
82 0.804 0.77 0.957 0.705 0.241
83 0.082 0.339 0.95 0.336 0.562
84 0.26 0.563 0.962 0.803 0.341
85 0.294 0.438 0.936 0.451 0.413
continued . . .
68
. . . continued
Data Sets SW AD KS CVM Chisq
86 0.155 0.115 0.904 0.093 0.38
87 0.693 0.676 0.922 0.686 0.115
88 0.143 0.094 0.962 0.142 0.397
89 0.897 0.798 0.966 0.723 0.901
90 0.012 0.015 0.937 0.03 0.071
91 0.777 0.494 0.962 0.422 0.391
92 0.058 0.156 0.89 0.135 0.328
93 0.403 0.273 0.946 0.278 0.124
94 .341 0.361 0.957 0.443 0.303
95 0.129 0.198 0.934 0.231 0.02
96 0.245 0.166 0.936 0.203 0.185
97 0.334 0.136 0.953 0.141 0
98 0.004 0.006 0.925 0.008 0.005
99 0.807 0.517 0.966 0.42 0.386
100 0.166 0.111 0.96 0.097 0.374
69
Tab
le9:
Est
imat
edR
awP
robab
ilit
ies
(ER
P)
ofSB
Pfo
r
enti
reco
hor
tth
atex
ceed
diff
eren
tquan
tile
sofy q
(t)
(q=
.90,
.95,
.99)
by
SN
Man
dU
NM
.
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
10.
0340
50.
0000
00.
0117
50.
0000
00.
0013
40.
0000
0
20.
1014
20.
1000
00.
0442
20.
0600
00.
0077
10.
0000
0
30.
0508
90.
0612
20.
0162
70.
0000
00.
0014
60.
0000
0
40.
0401
70.
0697
70.
0132
90.
0232
60.
0013
50.
0000
0
50.
0590
90.
0612
20.
0201
70.
0612
20.
0020
90.
0000
0
60.
1178
70.
0961
50.
0546
40.
0769
20.
0108
40.
0000
0
70.
0875
80.
0869
60.
0377
80.
0724
60.
0065
60.
0144
9
80.
1002
10.
1093
80.
0393
00.
0468
80.
0052
60.
0156
3
90.
1288
40.
1666
70.
0620
10.
0606
10.
0133
20.
0151
5
100.
1046
80.
1428
60.
0361
40.
0714
30.
0034
40.
0000
0
conti
nued
...
70
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
110.
0583
30.
0707
10.
0209
40.
0303
00.
0024
50.
0101
0
120.
0547
40.
0666
70.
0181
50.
0476
20.
0017
60.
0000
0
130.
0592
40.
0761
90.
0200
60.
0476
20.
0020
30.
0000
0
140.
0796
30.
1485
10.
0311
00.
0594
10.
0042
80.
0000
0
150.
0587
30.
1010
10.
0206
50.
0303
00.
0022
90.
0000
0
160.
0720
60.
0927
80.
0257
70.
0515
50.
0028
90.
0206
2
170.
0697
10.
0796
50.
0268
10.
0531
00.
0036
20.
0177
0
180.
1432
60.
1284
40.
0665
50.
1009
20.
0128
30.
0275
2
190.
1026
20.
1428
60.
0408
90.
0446
40.
0056
70.
0089
3
200.
0810
10.
1121
50.
0297
60.
0373
80.
0035
00.
0093
5
210.
0820
70.
1149
40.
0328
40.
0574
70.
0047
70.
0114
9
220.
0695
80.
1250
00.
0280
50.
0250
00.
0042
50.
0125
0
230.
0717
60.
0875
00.
0274
00.
0500
00.
0036
10.
0000
0
conti
nued
...
71
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
240.
0890
20.
1304
30.
0339
70.
0326
10.
0043
20.
0217
4
250.
1281
20.
1546
40.
0541
60.
0618
60.
0083
60.
0103
1
260.
1042
00.
1162
80.
0434
50.
0581
40.
0067
30.
0000
0
270.
0584
70.
1111
10.
0181
10.
0555
60.
0014
60.
0222
2
280.
1051
60.
1411
80.
0395
60.
0588
20.
0046
90.
0117
6
290.
1294
90.
1828
00.
0556
50.
0645
20.
0089
40.
0107
5
300.
1183
90.
1428
60.
0480
20.
0714
30.
0067
70.
0204
1
310.
0752
80.
0595
20.
0312
70.
0238
10.
0050
30.
0119
0
320.
0502
80.
0945
90.
0156
80.
0540
50.
0013
20.
0000
0
330.
1009
30.
1590
90.
0448
80.
0795
50.
0081
90.
0113
6
340.
0622
40.
1325
30.
0238
20.
0361
40.
0032
20.
0000
0
350.
0739
50.
1500
00.
0282
50.
0500
00.
0037
10.
0000
0
360.
0849
10.
1176
50.
0358
00.
0352
90.
0058
70.
0117
6
conti
nued
...
72
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
370.
0723
30.
0769
20.
0276
80.
0384
60.
0036
60.
0256
4
380.
0919
20.
1265
80.
0364
20.
0632
90.
0050
60.
0126
6
390.
1010
10.
1473
70.
0370
20.
0210
50.
0041
30.
0000
0
400.
0673
70.
1318
70.
0192
50.
0659
30.
0012
20.
0000
0
410.
0393
60.
0595
20.
0165
70.
0357
10.
0010
30.
0000
0
420.
0489
70.
0882
40.
0217
80.
0441
20.
0016
10.
0000
0
430.
0748
40.
1276
60.
0361
80.
0638
30.
0034
10.
0000
0
440.
0305
20.
0384
60.
0117
10.
0256
40.
0005
40.
0000
0
450.
0685
80.
1039
00.
0354
50.
0649
40.
0043
70.
0259
7
460.
0677
70.
0821
90.
0342
30.
0274
00.
0038
70.
0137
0
470.
1061
70.
1111
10.
0605
80.
0833
30.
0100
90.
0416
7
480.
0585
80.
1176
50.
0298
10.
0588
20.
0035
50.
0147
1
490.
0774
80.
1369
90.
0398
30.
0958
90.
0047
10.
0000
0
conti
nued
...
73
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
500.
0564
30.
0821
90.
0274
00.
0411
00.
0027
60.
0137
0
510.
0175
70.
0333
30.
0044
90.
0000
00.
0002
70.
0000
0
520.
0600
00.
1044
80.
0230
30.
0447
80.
0031
50.
0000
0
530.
0600
70.
0714
30.
0244
60.
0357
10.
0038
50.
0178
6
540.
0569
30.
0847
50.
0199
70.
0508
50.
0022
00.
0339
0
550.
0370
60.
0634
90.
0132
70.
0476
20.
0016
30.
0158
7
560.
0836
80.
1428
60.
0331
40.
1071
40.
0046
50.
0000
0
570.
0497
80.
0678
00.
0185
20.
0339
00.
0024
00.
0000
0
580.
0428
90.
0350
90.
0133
80.
0350
90.
0011
50.
0000
0
590.
1072
70.
1587
30.
0504
20.
0952
40.
0104
30.
0317
5
600.
0124
10.
0000
00.
0023
40.
0000
00.
0000
70.
0000
0
610.
0510
10.
0697
70.
0199
30.
0232
60.
0028
90.
0000
0
620.
0704
20.
1000
00.
0274
50.
0400
00.
0038
00.
0200
0
conti
nued
...
74
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
630.
0320
30.
0416
70.
0102
70.
0208
30.
0009
80.
0000
0
640.
0637
50.
0851
10.
0265
00.
0638
30.
0043
50.
0000
0
650.
0403
50.
0666
70.
0121
70.
0444
40.
0009
70.
0000
0
660.
0227
50.
0540
50.
0067
30.
0270
30.
0005
60.
0000
0
670.
0445
00.
1063
80.
0164
10.
0425
50.
0021
10.
0000
0
680.
0401
70.
0625
00.
0141
20.
0416
70.
0016
40.
0000
0
690.
1177
00.
1087
00.
0622
20.
0652
20.
0168
80.
0434
8
700.
0669
10.
1224
50.
0254
90.
0408
20.
0033
60.
0000
0
710.
0529
70.
0303
00.
0209
20.
0303
00.
0031
00.
0000
0
720.
0785
90.
1081
10.
0337
90.
0810
80.
0058
60.
0000
0
730.
0230
40.
0540
50.
0060
90.
0000
00.
0003
80.
0000
0
740.
0667
10.
0681
80.
0287
60.
0454
50.
0051
20.
0227
3
750.
0680
70.
1025
60.
0271
40.
0256
40.
0039
90.
0256
4
conti
nued
...
75
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
760.
0299
70.
0277
80.
0083
90.
0277
80.
0005
80.
0000
0
770.
0047
10.
0476
20.
0008
10.
0000
00.
0000
20.
0000
0
780.
0501
10.
0652
20.
0178
70.
0217
40.
0020
90.
0000
0
790.
0609
50.
0697
70.
0233
70.
0465
10.
0031
70.
0232
6
800.
0891
40.
1290
30.
0392
30.
1290
30.
0070
80.
0322
6
810.
0544
30.
0263
20.
0234
40.
0000
00.
0042
50.
0000
0
820.
0134
40.
0256
40.
0030
60.
0000
00.
0001
40.
0000
0
830.
0217
00.
0681
80.
0065
40.
0000
00.
0005
60.
0000
0
840.
0388
80.
0000
00.
0139
30.
0000
00.
0017
00.
0000
0
850.
0238
80.
0263
20.
0074
90.
0263
20.
0007
00.
0000
0
860.
0720
30.
1142
90.
0317
80.
0285
70.
0059
20.
0000
0
870.
0121
60.
0540
50.
0034
50.
0270
30.
0002
80.
0000
0
880.
0662
90.
0952
40.
0263
70.
0476
20.
0038
70.
0238
1
conti
nued
...
76
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
890.
0478
40.
0512
80.
0197
00.
0000
00.
0032
60.
0000
0
900.
0575
10.
0444
40.
0224
60.
0444
40.
0032
10.
0222
2
910.
0171
60.
0434
80.
0050
10.
0000
00.
0004
10.
0000
0
920.
0305
70.
0238
10.
0118
70.
0238
10.
0017
80.
0238
1
930.
0028
10.
0000
00.
0004
10.
0000
00.
0000
10.
0000
0
940.
0273
50.
0769
20.
0084
20.
0000
00.
0007
40.
0000
0
950.
0491
10.
0204
10.
0210
80.
0000
00.
0038
30.
0000
0
960.
0175
70.
0333
30.
0042
70.
0000
00.
0002
30.
0000
0
970.
0146
60.
0175
40.
0045
70.
0175
40.
0004
40.
0000
0
980.
0744
20.
1363
60.
0352
50.
0909
10.
0077
30.
0227
3
990.
0091
80.
0000
00.
0020
00.
0000
00.
0000
90.
0000
0
100
0.03
238
0.05
263
0.01
139
0.05
263
0.00
135
0.00
000
77
Tab
le10
:E
stim
ated
Raw
Pro
bab
ilit
ies
(ER
P)
ofSB
Pfo
r
Cau
casi
anG
irls
that
exce
eddiff
eren
tquan
tile
sof
q(t
)(q=
.90,
.95,
.99)
by
SN
Man
dU
NM
.
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
10.
0560
00.
0000
00.
0239
60.
0000
00.
0043
00.
0000
0
20.
0923
00.
1500
00.
0441
30.
1000
00.
0097
50.
0000
0
30.
0250
30.
0000
00.
0072
70.
0000
00.
0005
70.
0000
0
40.
0092
50.
0000
00.
0018
30.
0000
00.
0000
70.
0000
0
50.
0344
90.
0370
40.
0095
00.
0370
40.
0006
30.
0000
0
60.
0862
70.
0000
00.
0415
20.
0000
00.
0093
90.
0000
0
70.
1362
60.
1290
30.
0738
40.
1290
30.
0210
20.
0322
6
80.
0956
70.
1333
30.
0408
40.
0666
70.
0068
20.
0333
3
90.
0993
50.
1428
60.
0448
90.
0000
00.
0085
70.
0000
0
100.
1151
60.
1724
10.
0442
80.
1034
50.
0054
80.
0000
0
conti
nued
...
78
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
110.
1156
50.
1282
10.
0507
60.
0512
80.
0088
00.
0256
4
120.
0803
10.
1000
00.
0310
10.
0750
00.
0041
40.
0000
0
130.
0459
50.
0588
20.
0144
40.
0392
20.
0012
60.
0000
0
140.
0396
10.
1250
00.
0125
70.
0208
30.
0011
50.
0000
0
150.
0522
80.
0909
10.
0192
60.
0227
30.
0024
40.
0000
0
160.
1383
30.
1851
90.
0696
70.
1481
50.
0165
50.
0740
7
170.
0673
40.
0454
50.
0283
20.
0454
50.
0047
70.
0227
3
180.
0643
50.
0277
80.
0233
70.
0277
80.
0027
70.
0000
0
190.
1272
40.
1555
60.
0581
20.
0666
70.
0109
60.
0222
2
200.
0657
70.
0816
30.
0216
90.
0204
10.
0020
10.
0204
1
210.
0657
30.
0625
00.
0264
60.
0312
50.
0040
20.
0000
0
220.
0537
20.
1034
50.
0166
80.
0000
00.
0013
80.
0000
0
230.
0375
70.
0571
40.
0128
60.
0285
70.
0014
20.
0000
0
conti
nued
...
79
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
240.
0588
70.
1000
00.
0184
80.
0000
00.
0015
40.
0000
0
250.
0996
10.
1052
60.
0392
00.
0526
30.
0052
80.
0263
2
260.
1341
50.
1875
00.
0638
70.
1250
00.
0132
40.
0000
0
270.
0093
80.
0303
00.
0011
80.
0000
00.
0000
10.
0000
0
280.
0314
70.
0571
40.
0054
80.
0000
00.
0001
10.
0000
0
290.
0730
70.
1111
10.
0231
60.
0555
60.
0019
00.
0000
0
300.
1631
80.
1612
90.
0830
60.
1290
30.
0197
20.
0645
2
310.
0781
30.
0625
00.
0328
10.
0312
50.
0053
90.
0000
0
320.
0303
20.
0571
40.
0083
00.
0285
70.
0005
50.
0000
0
330.
0730
40.
1428
60.
0304
00.
0238
10.
0049
30.
0000
0
340.
0293
40.
1081
10.
0091
60.
0270
30.
0008
30.
0000
0
350.
0320
70.
1000
00.
0097
30.
0333
30.
0008
20.
0000
0
360.
0654
40.
0625
00.
0255
30.
0312
50.
0035
90.
0000
0
conti
nued
...
80
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
370.
0244
30.
0500
00.
0068
10.
0000
00.
0004
80.
0000
0
380.
0653
40.
0967
70.
0228
80.
0322
60.
0024
60.
0000
0
390.
0819
50.
1282
10.
0180
40.
0000
00.
0005
30.
0000
0
400.
0796
40.
1428
60.
0243
40.
0857
10.
0017
80.
0000
0
410.
0126
20.
0250
00.
0038
90.
0000
00.
0000
90.
0000
0
420.
0593
20.
1034
50.
0289
20.
0689
70.
0029
30.
0000
0
430.
0457
70.
0909
10.
0188
20.
0227
30.
0010
40.
0000
0
440.
0199
10.
0454
50.
0063
20.
0454
50.
0001
50.
0000
0
450.
0172
40.
0512
80.
0063
90.
0000
00.
0002
80.
0000
0
460.
0433
80.
0384
60.
0200
20.
0000
00.
0017
30.
0000
0
470.
1302
70.
1282
10.
0841
30.
1282
10.
0215
40.
0512
8
480.
0819
70.
1428
60.
0455
80.
0857
10.
0071
70.
0285
7
490.
0734
10.
1111
10.
0375
70.
1111
10.
0044
10.
0000
0
conti
nued
...
81
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
500.
0202
30.
0666
70.
0068
30.
0000
00.
0002
10.
0000
0
510.
0266
60.
0625
00.
0069
40.
0000
00.
0004
10.
0000
0
520.
0387
00.
0882
40.
0138
90.
0000
00.
0017
00.
0000
0
530.
0426
90.
0588
20.
0141
40.
0000
00.
0014
10.
0000
0
540.
0412
30.
0833
30.
0130
20.
0833
30.
0011
60.
0416
7
550.
0312
70.
0540
50.
0111
40.
0540
50.
0013
80.
0000
0
560.
0100
10.
0526
30.
0019
40.
0000
00.
0000
60.
0000
0
570.
0221
00.
0294
10.
0063
30.
0000
00.
0004
90.
0000
0
580.
0365
50.
0294
10.
0106
00.
0294
10.
0007
80.
0000
0
590.
1061
30.
1612
90.
0512
00.
0967
70.
0113
00.
0322
6
600.
0180
40.
0000
00.
0043
20.
0000
00.
0002
20.
0000
0
610.
0240
10.
0588
20.
0066
20.
0588
20.
0004
60.
0000
0
620.
0630
90.
1034
50.
0239
60.
0344
80.
0031
60.
0000
0
conti
nued
...
82
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
630.
0262
10.
0384
60.
0083
30.
0000
00.
0008
00.
0000
0
640.
0276
00.
0322
60.
0086
30.
0322
60.
0007
90.
0000
0
650.
0133
30.
0000
00.
0025
50.
0000
00.
0000
80.
0000
0
660.
0040
10.
0000
00.
0006
80.
0000
00.
0000
20.
0000
0
670.
0314
00.
0357
10.
0106
60.
0000
00.
0011
70.
0000
0
680.
0266
80.
0000
00.
0086
10.
0000
00.
0008
60.
0000
0
690.
0685
20.
0952
40.
0288
40.
0476
20.
0048
30.
0000
0
700.
0466
00.
0454
50.
0164
00.
0000
00.
0018
80.
0000
0
710.
0664
60.
0526
30.
0284
10.
0526
30.
0049
60.
0000
0
720.
0525
90.
0476
20.
0207
10.
0476
20.
0030
50.
0000
0
730.
0287
20.
0869
60.
0076
50.
0000
00.
0004
70.
0000
0
740.
0694
50.
0800
00.
0298
40.
0400
00.
0052
50.
0000
0
750.
0392
70.
1000
00.
0116
80.
0000
00.
0009
10.
0000
0
conti
nued
...
83
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
760.
0321
30.
0500
00.
0106
60.
0500
00.
0011
10.
0000
0
770.
0010
80.
0000
00.
0001
30.
0000
00.
0000
00.
0000
0
780.
0394
20.
0416
70.
0121
00.
0000
00.
0010
10.
0000
0
790.
0263
00.
0000
00.
0064
20.
0000
00.
0003
20.
0000
0
800.
0359
00.
0666
70.
0124
10.
0666
70.
0014
00.
0000
0
810.
0390
60.
0434
80.
0136
40.
0000
00.
0015
60.
0000
0
820.
0133
60.
0344
80.
0029
50.
0000
00.
0001
30.
0000
0
830.
0211
90.
0357
10.
0065
60.
0000
00.
0006
00.
0000
0
840.
0280
40.
0000
00.
0095
30.
0000
00.
0010
60.
0000
0
850.
0355
40.
0454
50.
0123
40.
0454
50.
0014
10.
0000
0
860.
0493
80.
0588
20.
0198
40.
0000
00.
0030
90.
0000
0
870.
0018
20.
0000
00.
0002
80.
0000
00.
0000
10.
0000
0
880.
0567
00.
0476
20.
0229
10.
0000
00.
0035
50.
0000
0
conti
nued
...
84
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
890.
0217
80.
0000
00.
0077
00.
0000
00.
0009
60.
0000
0
900.
0321
80.
0000
00.
0103
20.
0000
00.
0009
90.
0000
0
910.
0296
70.
0689
70.
0112
60.
0000
00.
0016
10.
0000
0
920.
0157
70.
0000
00.
0051
70.
0000
00.
0005
60.
0000
0
930.
0027
40.
0000
00.
0004
10.
0000
00.
0000
10.
0000
0
940.
0216
40.
0909
10.
0064
40.
0000
00.
0005
40.
0000
0
950.
0340
90.
0416
70.
0140
30.
0000
00.
0023
90.
0000
0
960.
0437
80.
0555
60.
0149
70.
0000
00.
0016
10.
0000
0
970.
0148
50.
0312
50.
0047
60.
0312
50.
0004
90.
0000
0
980.
0144
40.
0476
20.
0042
10.
0476
20.
0003
50.
0000
0
990.
0013
20.
0000
00.
0001
60.
0000
00.
0000
00.
0000
0
100
0.03
632
0.00
000
0.01
567
0.00
000
0.00
295
0.00
000
85
Tab
le11
:E
stim
ated
Raw
Pro
bab
ilit
ies
(ER
P)
ofSB
Pfo
r
Afr
ican
Am
eric
anG
irls
that
exce
eddiff
eren
tquan
tile
sof
y q(t
)(q=
.90,
.95,
.99)
by
SN
Man
dU
NM
.
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
10.
0241
60.
0000
00.
0072
00.
0000
00.
0006
10
20.
1044
60.
0666
70.
0408
30.
0333
30.
0053
80
30.
0690
60.
1111
10.
0202
90.
0000
00.
0013
90
40.
0900
50.
1428
60.
0387
00.
0476
20.
0066
30
50.
0975
10.
0909
10.
0407
00.
0909
10.
0064
10
60.
1352
50.
1724
10.
0540
80.
1379
30.
0071
50
70.
0445
90.
0526
30.
0133
30.
0263
20.
0010
40
80.
1022
90.
0882
40.
0358
30.
0294
10.
0035
60
90.
1543
40.
1842
10.
0779
10.
1052
60.
0183
30.
0263
1579
100.
0989
50.
1219
50.
0318
10.
0487
80.
0025
30
conti
nued
...
86
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
110.
0284
00.
0333
30.
0080
40.
0166
70.
0005
80
120.
0415
90.
0461
50.
0123
80.
0307
70.
0009
60
130.
0743
00.
0925
90.
0269
80.
0555
60.
0031
30
140.
1220
00.
1698
10.
0529
90.
0943
40.
0088
60
150.
0630
60.
1090
90.
0208
90.
0363
60.
0019
80
160.
0468
00.
0571
40.
0132
20.
0142
90.
0008
80
170.
0692
50.
1014
50.
0244
00.
0579
70.
0026
60.
0144
9275
180.
1862
80.
1780
80.
0923
90.
1369
90.
0200
60.
0410
9589
190.
0864
00.
1343
30.
0308
20.
0298
50.
0033
20
200.
0956
40.
1379
30.
0383
40.
0517
20.
0054
60
210.
0924
30.
1454
50.
0365
50.
0727
30.
0050
50.
0181
8182
220.
0756
00.
1372
50.
0334
20.
0392
20.
0062
50.
0196
0784
230.
0991
90.
1111
10.
0376
50.
0666
70.
0046
30
conti
nued
...
87
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
240.
1146
40.
1538
50.
0492
90.
0576
90.
0081
10.
0384
6154
250.
1489
70.
1864
40.
0658
60.
0678
00.
0110
80
260.
0879
90.
0740
70.
0336
00.
0185
20.
0042
90
270.
0963
70.
1578
90.
0375
90.
0877
20.
0049
80.
0350
8772
280.
1542
90.
2000
00.
0728
30.
1000
00.
0144
10.
02
290.
1651
20.
2280
70.
0803
70.
0701
80.
0169
90.
0175
4386
300.
0949
90.
1343
30.
0327
90.
0447
80.
0031
80
310.
0755
30.
0576
90.
0316
10.
0192
30.
0051
80.
0192
3077
320.
0719
10.
1282
10.
0243
00.
0769
20.
0023
50
330.
1298
20.
1739
10.
0604
30.
1304
30.
0118
80.
0217
3913
340.
0943
80.
1521
70.
0397
90.
0434
80.
0064
20
350.
1040
20.
1800
00.
0429
20.
0600
00.
0064
60
360.
0991
40.
1509
40.
0439
60.
0377
40.
0079
80.
0188
6792
conti
nued
...
88
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
370.
1343
10.
1052
60.
0580
20.
0789
50.
0093
70.
0526
3158
380.
1120
50.
1458
30.
0478
40.
0833
30.
0077
50.
0208
3333
390.
0979
90.
1607
10.
0404
90.
0357
10.
0061
80
400.
0616
80.
1250
00.
0171
50.
0535
70.
0010
30
410.
0732
70.
0909
10.
0362
00.
0681
80.
0037
20
420.
0428
80.
0769
20.
0178
30.
0256
40.
0010
40
430.
1036
80.
1600
00.
0557
40.
1000
00.
0074
30
440.
0458
60.
0294
10.
0209
70.
0000
00.
0017
40
450.
1376
70.
1578
90.
0821
80.
1315
80.
0155
60.
0526
3158
460.
0843
80.
1063
80.
0446
10.
0425
50.
0057
90.
0212
766
470.
0539
20.
0909
10.
0206
90.
0303
00.
0008
40.
0303
0303
480.
0383
60.
0909
10.
0174
90.
0303
00.
0014
80
490.
0821
90.
1521
70.
0428
60.
0869
60.
0053
00
conti
nued
...
89
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
500.
0850
40.
0930
20.
0474
80.
0697
70.
0075
50.
0232
5581
510.
0081
80.
0000
00.
0018
20.
0000
00.
0000
90
520.
0841
00.
1212
10.
0329
20.
0909
10.
0044
90
530.
0852
60.
0909
10.
0426
20.
0909
10.
0104
80.
0454
5455
540.
0711
20.
0857
10.
0270
30.
0285
70.
0035
10.
0285
7143
550.
0471
50.
0769
20.
0170
00.
0384
60.
0020
60.
0384
6154
560.
1350
60.
1891
90.
0603
80.
1621
60.
0106
20
570.
0999
00.
1200
00.
0459
00.
0800
00.
0090
70
580.
0564
00.
0434
80.
0200
40.
0434
80.
0022
90
590.
1116
20.
1562
50.
0519
50.
0937
50.
0104
30.
0312
5
600.
0075
70.
0000
00.
0010
30.
0000
00.
0000
20
610.
0720
70.
0769
20.
0329
10.
0000
00.
0066
50
620.
0859
10.
0952
40.
0357
60.
0476
20.
0056
60.
0476
1905
conti
nued
...
90
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
630.
0413
50.
0454
50.
0135
40.
0454
50.
0013
20
640.
1535
20.
1875
00.
0844
50.
1250
00.
0244
30
650.
0616
30.
1034
50.
0221
10.
0689
70.
0025
50
660.
0550
90.
1052
60.
0212
00.
0526
30.
0029
40
670.
0705
90.
2105
30.
0292
00.
1052
60.
0046
80
680.
0524
20.
1034
50.
0196
30.
0689
70.
0025
70
690.
1594
00.
1200
00.
0954
20.
0800
00.
0336
40.
08
700.
0881
00.
1851
90.
0358
00.
0740
70.
0053
20
710.
0419
40.
0000
00.
0155
00.
0000
00.
0020
20
720.
1219
70.
1875
00.
0576
40.
1250
00.
0118
50
730.
0162
30.
0000
00.
0042
50.
0000
00.
0002
70
740.
0680
60.
0526
30.
0304
90.
0526
30.
0059
30.
0526
3158
750.
1010
60.
1052
60.
0493
90.
0526
30.
0113
00.
0526
3158
conti
nued
...
91
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
760.
0192
30.
0000
00.
0032
50.
0000
00.
0000
70
770.
0114
40.
0952
40.
0023
80.
0000
00.
0000
90
780.
0643
60.
0909
10.
0266
50.
0454
50.
0043
20
790.
0779
20.
1000
00.
0339
50.
0666
70.
0060
80.
0333
3333
800.
1523
10.
1875
00.
0753
60.
1875
00.
0167
80.
0625
810.
0749
00.
0000
00.
0393
00.
0000
00.
0109
20
820.
0173
40.
0000
00.
0047
60.
0000
00.
0003
40
830.
0254
30.
1250
00.
0076
70.
0000
00.
0006
50
840.
0625
10.
0000
00.
0243
80.
0000
00.
0034
30
850.
0134
40.
0000
00.
0036
80.
0000
00.
0002
70
860.
1009
80.
1666
70.
0489
10.
0555
60.
0109
50
870.
0741
90.
1818
20.
0373
80.
0909
10.
0094
70
880.
0789
50.
1428
60.
0311
30.
0952
40.
0043
60.
0476
1905
conti
nued
...
92
...c
onti
nued
Dat
aE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
PE
RP
ofSB
P
Set
s≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
90(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
95(t
)≥y .
99(t
)≥y .
99(t
)
by
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
Mby
SN
Mby
UN
M
890.
0822
50.
1052
60.
0363
10.
0000
00.
0066
70
900.
0985
90.
1000
00.
0462
50.
1000
00.
0096
10.
05
910.
0012
90.
0000
00.
0001
00.
0000
00.
0000
00
920.
0706
90.
0666
70.
0338
50.
0666
70.
0076
60.
0666
6667
930.
0036
80.
0000
00.
0005
60.
0000
00.
0000
10
940.
0388
70.
0588
20.
0128
80.
0000
00.
0013
00
950.
0666
20.
0000
00.
0294
00.
0000
00.
0055
20
960.
0007
60.
0000
00.
0000
50.
0000
00.
0000
00
970.
0159
70.
0000
00.
0050
00.
0000
00.
0004
90
980.
1479
50.
2173
90.
0839
30.
1304
30.
0262
30.
0434
7826
990.
0244
70.
0000
00.
0070
30.
0000
00.
0005
30
100
0.02
870
0.08
333
0.00
839
0.08
333
0.00
065
0
93
Table 12: Local linear smoothing estimates for µ(t) and
σ(t) for 100 data sets of entire cohort.
Data Sets Smoothed Mean Smoothed SD
1 4.607932 0.08324157
2 4.61047 0.08305636
3 4.612976 0.08287314
4 4.615447 0.08269112
5 4.617884 0.08251192
6 4.620288 0.08233448
7 4.622656 0.08215882
8 4.624989 0.08198541
9 4.627286 0.08181361
10 4.629547 0.08164475
11 4.631771 0.08147822
12 4.633957 0.0813142
13 4.636104 0.08115307
14 4.638213 0.08099445
15 4.640281 0.08083881
16 4.642309 0.08068629
17 4.644294 0.08053695
18 4.646237 0.08039086
19 4.648137 0.08024827
20 4.649992 0.08010934
21 4.651802 0.07997427
continued . . .
94
. . . continued
Data Sets Smoothed Mean Smoothed SD
22 4.653567 0.07984321
23 4.655285 0.07971635
24 4.656956 0.07959387
25 4.65858 0.07947592
26 4.660157 0.07936274
27 4.661685 0.07925439
28 4.663166 0.07915105
29 4.664599 0.0790529
30 4.665984 0.07895995
31 4.667322 0.07887228
32 4.668613 0.07879008
33 4.669857 0.07871307
34 4.671056 0.07864152
35 4.672209 0.07857545
36 4.673319 0.07851449
37 4.674386 0.07845881
38 4.675411 0.07840828
39 4.676396 0.07836244
40 4.677342 0.07832134
41 4.678252 0.07828468
42 4.679125 0.07825221
43 4.679965 0.07822363
44 4.680772 0.07819863
continued . . .
95
. . . continued
Data Sets Smoothed Mean Smoothed SD
45 4.681549 0.07817689
46 4.682298 0.07815806
47 4.683019 0.07814178
48 4.683715 0.07812769
49 4.684388 0.07811543
50 4.685038 0.07810463
51 4.685669 0.07809494
52 4.68628 0.07808602
53 4.686874 0.07807754
54 4.687451 0.07806919
55 4.688013 0.07806069
56 4.688561 0.07805178
57 4.689094 0.07804222
58 4.689615 0.07803181
59 4.690124 0.07802037
60 4.69062 0.07800776
61 4.691104 0.07799387
62 4.691577 0.07797857
63 4.692037 0.07796183
64 4.692486 0.07794371
65 4.692922 0.07792409
66 4.693345 0.07790303
67 4.693755 0.07788049
continued . . .
96
. . . continued
Data Sets Smoothed Mean Smoothed SD
68 4.694152 0.07785662
69 4.694534 0.07783156
70 4.694902 0.07780524
71 4.695255 0.07777797
72 4.695592 0.07774966
73 4.695913 0.07772052
74 4.696218 0.07769065
75 4.696505 0.07766014
76 4.696774 0.07762916
77 4.697026 0.07759781
78 4.697259 0.07756618
79 4.697474 0.07753438
80 4.69767 0.0775025
81 4.697848 0.07747058
82 4.698008 0.07743869
83 4.698149 0.07740685
84 4.698271 0.07737503
85 4.698377 0.0773432
86 4.698465 0.07731135
87 4.698536 0.07727941
88 4.698592 0.0772471
89 4.698632 0.07721448
90 4.698658 0.07718144
continued . . .
97
. . . continued
Data Sets Smoothed Mean Smoothed SD
91 4.69867 0.07714765
92 4.69867 0.07711316
93 4.698658 0.07707707
94 4.698636 0.07704011
95 4.698603 0.07700127
96 4.698563 0.07696029
97 4.698515 0.07691734
98 4.698462 0.0768714
99 4.698404 0.07682238
100 4.698343 0.07676942
98
Table 13: Girls with median height and age specific log
scaled SBP percentile values.
Age 90th Percentile 95th Percentile 99th Percentile
9.1 4.733495 4.766604 4.825591
9.2 4.735181 4.768234 4.827128
9.3 4.736867 4.769866 4.828667
9.4 4.738555 4.771499 4.830206
9.5 4.740243 4.773133 4.831747
9.6 4.741932 4.774767 4.833288
9.7 4.74362 4.776401 4.834829
9.8 4.745308 4.778034 4.836369
9.9 4.746994 4.779666 4.837909
10 4.748679 4.781297 4.839448
10.1 4.750362 4.782926 4.840985
10.2 4.752043 4.784553 4.84252
10.3 4.753721 4.786177 4.844053
10.4 4.755396 4.787799 4.845584
10.5 4.757067 4.789417 4.847111
10.6 4.758735 4.791032 4.848635
10.7 4.760398 4.792642 4.850156
10.8 4.762057 4.794248 4.851672
10.9 4.76371 4.795849 4.853184
11 4.765358 4.797445 4.854691
11.1 4.767001 4.799036 4.856193
continued . . .
99
. . . continued
Age 90th Percentile 95th Percentile 99th Percentile
11.2 4.768637 4.80062 4.857689
11.3 4.770266 4.802199 4.85918
11.4 4.771889 4.80377 4.860665
11.5 4.773504 4.805335 4.862143
11.6 4.775112 4.806892 4.863614
11.7 4.776711 4.808441 4.865078
11.8 4.778302 4.809983 4.866535
11.9 4.779884 4.811516 4.867984
12 4.781458 4.81304 4.869424
12.1 4.783021 4.814555 4.870856
12.2 4.784575 4.816061 4.87228
12.3 4.786119 4.817557 4.873694
12.4 4.787652 4.819042 4.875098
12.5 4.789174 4.820517 4.876493
12.6 4.790685 4.821982 4.877878
12.7 4.792184 4.823435 4.879252
12.8 4.793672 4.824877 4.880616
12.9 4.795147 4.826306 4.881968
13 4.796609 4.827724 4.883309
13.1 4.798059 4.829129 4.884638
13.2 4.799495 4.830522 4.885955
13.3 4.800918 4.831901 4.88726
13.4 4.802326 4.833266 4.888552
continued . . .
100
. . . continued
Age 90th Percentile 95th Percentile 99th Percentile
13.5 4.803721 4.834618 4.889832
13.6 4.8051 4.835956 4.891098
13.7 4.806465 4.837279 4.89235
13.8 4.807815 4.838588 4.893588
13.9 4.809148 4.839881 4.894813
14 4.810466 4.841159 4.896023
14.1 4.811768 4.842422 4.897218
14.2 4.813053 4.843668 4.898397
14.3 4.814321 4.844898 4.899562
14.4 4.815572 4.846111 4.900711
14.5 4.816806 4.847308 4.901844
14.6 4.818021 4.848487 4.90296
14.7 4.819219 4.849648 4.90406
14.8 4.820398 4.850792 4.905143
14.9 4.821558 4.851917 4.906209
15 4.822698 4.853024 4.907257
15.1 4.82382 4.854112 4.908288
15.2 4.824922 4.855181 4.9093
15.3 4.826003 4.85623 4.910294
15.4 4.827064 4.85726 4.91127
15.5 4.828105 4.858269 4.912226
15.6 4.829124 4.859259 4.913164
15.7 4.830122 4.860227 4.914081
continued . . .
101
. . . continued
Age 90th Percentile 95th Percentile 99th Percentile
15.8 4.831099 4.861174 4.914979
15.9 4.832053 4.862101 4.915857
16 4.832985 4.863005 4.916714
16.1 4.833895 4.863888 4.917551
16.2 4.834782 4.864748 4.918366
16.3 4.835645 4.865586 4.91916
16.4 4.836485 4.866401 4.919933
16.5 4.837301 4.867193 4.920683
16.6 4.838093 4.867962 4.921412
16.7 4.83886 4.868706 4.922118
16.8 4.839602 4.869427 4.922801
16.9 4.84032 4.870123 4.923461
17 4.841011 4.870795 4.924098
17.1 4.841678 4.871441 4.924711
17.2 4.842318 4.872063 4.9253
17.3 4.842931 4.872658 4.925864
17.4 4.843518 4.873228 4.926404
17.5 4.844077 4.873771 4.92692
17.6 4.84461 4.874288 4.92741
17.7 4.845114 4.874777 4.927874
17.8 4.845591 4.87524 4.928313
17.9 4.846039 4.875675 4.928725
18 4.846458 4.876082 4.929111
continued . . .
102
. . . continued
Age 90th Percentile 95th Percentile 99th Percentile
18.1 4.846848 4.876461 4.929471
18.2 4.847209 4.876811 4.929803
18.3 4.84754 4.877133 4.930108
18.4 4.847841 4.877425 4.930385
18.5 4.848112 4.877688 4.930634
18.6 4.848352 4.87792 4.930855
18.7 4.84856 4.878123 4.931047
18.8 4.848738 4.878295 4.93121
18.9 4.848883 4.878436 4.931344
19 4.848996 4.878546 4.931448
103
Table 14: Smoothing probabilities by local linear smooth-
ing estimator and Nadaraya-Watson Kernel smoothing
estimator for entire cohort.
Age 1-p90 by SNM 1-p95 by SNM 1-np90 by UNM 1-np95 by UNM
9.1 0.05803788 0.022803294 0.07195069 0.03444722
9.2 0.05811078 0.022827506 0.07224472 0.03451883
9.3 0.05817845 0.022849613 0.07253242 0.03458641
9.4 0.05824079 0.022869543 0.07281305 0.03465001
9.5 0.05829699 0.02288699 0.07308645 0.03470968
9.6 0.05834656 0.022901787 0.073352 0.03476539
9.7 0.05838847 0.022913498 0.07360678 0.0348157
9.8 0.05842182 0.022921738 0.0738512 0.034861
9.9 0.05844624 0.022926387 0.07408485 0.03490098
10 0.05846104 0.022927176 0.07430589 0.03493536
10.1 0.05846525 0.022923712 0.07451408 0.03496384
10.2 0.05845849 0.022915888 0.07470823 0.03498642
10.3 0.05843926 0.022903063 0.07488735 0.03500228
10.4 0.05840743 0.02288521 0.07505088 0.03501158
10.5 0.0583618 0.022861864 0.07519683 0.03501363
10.6 0.05830167 0.022832749 0.07532518 0.03500853
10.7 0.05822601 0.022797462 0.07543442 0.03499562
10.8 0.05813429 0.02275582 0.07552378 0.03497503
10.9 0.05802547 0.022707414 0.07559211 0.0349461
11 0.0578991 0.022652075 0.07563932 0.03490875
continued . . .
104
. . . continued
Age 1-p90 by SNM 1-p95 by SNM 1-np90 by UNM 1-np95 by UNM
11.1 0.05775452 0.022589587 0.07566352 0.03486276
11.2 0.05759073 0.022519531 0.07566411 0.03480789
11.3 0.0574073 0.022441781 0.07564059 0.0347441
11.4 0.05720408 0.022356339 0.07559289 0.0346713
11.5 0.05697988 0.02226268 0.07551881 0.0345888
11.6 0.05673479 0.022160899 0.07541893 0.03449675
11.7 0.05646867 0.022050977 0.07529256 0.03439532
11.8 0.05618111 0.021932769 0.07513914 0.03428418
11.9 0.055872 0.021806263 0.07495833 0.03416328
12 0.05554136 0.021671495 0.07474988 0.03403258
12.1 0.0551893 0.02152854 0.07451364 0.03389208
12.2 0.05481605 0.021377518 0.07424957 0.03374178
12.3 0.05442196 0.021218597 0.0739577 0.03358171
12.4 0.05400749 0.021051985 0.07363819 0.03341195
12.5 0.05357321 0.020877935 0.07329128 0.03323256
12.6 0.0531198 0.020696741 0.07291732 0.03304365
12.7 0.05264806 0.02050874 0.07251677 0.03284533
12.8 0.05215888 0.020314301 0.07209016 0.03263773
12.9 0.05165323 0.020113831 0.07163812 0.03242101
13 0.0511322 0.019907766 0.07116138 0.03219532
13.1 0.05059693 0.01969657 0.07066074 0.03196083
13.2 0.05004863 0.019480728 0.07013708 0.03171773
13.3 0.04948859 0.019260743 0.06959136 0.03146619
continued . . .
105
. . . continued
Age 1-p90 by SNM 1-p95 by SNM 1-np90 by UNM 1-np95 by UNM
13.4 0.04891811 0.019037134 0.0690246 0.03120641
13.5 0.04833856 0.018810425 0.06843787 0.03093859
13.6 0.04775131 0.018581147 0.06783231 0.03066294
13.7 0.04715775 0.018349829 0.06720909 0.03037967
13.8 0.04655925 0.018116996 0.06656944 0.03008899
13.9 0.0459572 0.017883164 0.06591459 0.02979113
14 0.04535295 0.017648834 0.06524583 0.0294863
14.1 0.0447478 0.017414491 0.06456446 0.02917475
14.2 0.04414304 0.017180602 0.06387178 0.02885671
14.3 0.04353989 0.016947609 0.06316913 0.02853245
14.4 0.04293952 0.01671593 0.06245782 0.02820223
14.5 0.04234302 0.016485956 0.06173919 0.02786633
14.6 0.04175143 0.01625805 0.06101456 0.02752503
14.7 0.04116572 0.016032546 0.06028523 0.02717865
14.8 0.04058677 0.015809747 0.05955252 0.02682753
14.9 0.04001538 0.015589929 0.05881769 0.026472
15 0.0394523 0.015373336 0.05808202 0.02611243
15.1 0.03889817 0.015160184 0.05734674 0.02574921
15.2 0.03835357 0.014950662 0.05661306 0.02538274
15.3 0.037819 0.014744931 0.05588216 0.02501347
15.4 0.03729489 0.014543128 0.05515519 0.02464182
15.5 0.03678161 0.014345365 0.05443325 0.02426827
15.6 0.03627945 0.014151734 0.05371742 0.0238933
continued . . .
106
. . . continued
Age 1-p90 by SNM 1-p95 by SNM 1-np90 by UNM 1-np95 by UNM
15.7 0.03578865 0.013962305 0.05300872 0.0235174
15.8 0.03530938 0.01377713 0.05230815 0.02314108
15.9 0.03484177 0.013596244 0.05161663 0.02276487
16 0.0343859 0.013419668 0.05093506 0.02238928
16.1 0.0339418 0.01324741 0.05026429 0.02201485
16.2 0.03350946 0.013079465 0.04960508 0.0216421
16.3 0.03308885 0.012915818 0.04895819 0.02127156
16.4 0.0326799 0.012756447 0.04832429 0.02090374
16.5 0.03228249 0.012601319 0.04770401 0.02053916
16.6 0.03189654 0.012450415 0.04709821 0.02017844
16.7 0.03152149 0.012303487 0.04650637 0.01982162
16.8 0.03115794 0.012160876 0.04593015 0.01946977
16.9 0.03080541 0.012022344 0.04536957 0.01912283
17 0.03046354 0.011887786 0.04482458 0.01878114
17.1 0.03013192 0.011756999 0.04429566 0.01844542
17.2 0.02981092 0.011630239 0.0437832 0.01811609
17.3 0.02950006 0.011507334 0.04328741 0.01779333
17.4 0.02919899 0.011388082 0.04280823 0.01747768
17.5 0.02890791 0.011272732 0.04234566 0.01716916
17.6 0.02862638 0.011161014 0.04190018 0.01686785
17.7 0.02835416 0.011052894 0.04147152 0.01657398
17.8 0.02809098 0.01094827 0.04105959 0.01628787
17.9 0.0278365 0.010847015 0.04066411 0.01600972
continued . . .
107
. . . continued
Age 1-p90 by SNM 1-p95 by SNM 1-np90 by UNM 1-np95 by UNM
18 0.0275908 0.010749217 0.0402854 0.0157398
18.1 0.02735343 0.010654692 0.03992308 0.01547763
18.2 0.02712425 0.010563398 0.03957669 0.01522356
18.3 0.02690254 0.010475015 0.03924569 0.01497729
18.4 0.02668897 0.010389954 0.03893077 0.01473981
18.5 0.02648311 0.010307996 0.03863127 0.01451039
18.6 0.02628428 0.01022884 0.03834664 0.01428872
18.7 0.02609273 0.010152629 0.03807706 0.01407526
18.8 0.02590809 0.010079245 0.03782172 0.01386954
18.9 0.02573003 0.010008548 0.03758043 0.01367179
19 0.02555815 0.009940343 0.03735263 0.01348134
108
Table 15: Some values of bandwidth for entire cohort, Caucasian cohort and AfricanAmerican cohort obtained by AIC cross validation method. Cross validation scoresare given in the parenthesis.
Table 16: Some values of bandwidth for entire cohort, Caucasian cohort and AfricanAmerican cohort obtained by LS cross validation method. Cross validation scores aregiven in the parenthesis.