The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Approximations to the Log-Likelihood Function in the Nonlinear Mixed-Effects Model
Abstract
Nonlinear mixed-effects models have received a great deal of attention in the statistical literature in recent years because of the flexibility they offer in handling the unbalanced repeated-measures data that arise in different areas of investigation, such as pharmacokinetics and economics. Several different methods for estimating the parameters in nonlinear mixed-effects model have been proposed. We concentrate here on two of them—maximum likelihood and restricted maximum likelihood. A rather complex numerical issue for (restricted) maximum likelihood estimation in nonlinear mixed-effects models is the evaluation of the log-likelihood function of the data, because it involves the evaluation of a multiple integral that, in most cases, does not have a closed-form expression. We consider here four different approximations to the log-likelihood, comparing their computational and statistical properties. We conclude that the linear mixed-effects (LME) approximation suggested by Lindstrom and Bates, the Laplacian approximation, and Gaussian quadrature centered at the conditional modes of the random effects are quite accurate and computationally efficient. Gaussian quadrature centered at the expected value of the random effects is quite inaccurate for a smaller number of abscissas and computationally inefficient for a larger number of abscissas. Importance sampling is accurate, but quite inefficient computationally.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data
Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (1982) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529876 · Cited by 8,923
Maximum Likelihood Approaches to Variance Component Estimation and to Related Problems
Harville, D. A. (1977) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1977.10480998 · Cited by 2,667
Cited by
Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195152968.001.0001 · Cited by 10,647
How Many Countries for Multilevel Modeling? A Comparison of Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches
Stegmueller, D. (2013) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12001 · Cited by 818
A comparison of Bayesian and likelihood-based methods for fitting multilevel models
Browne, W. J., & Draper, D. (2006) · Bayesian Analysis · doi:10.1214/06-ba117 · Cited by 603
Estimating Size and Composition of Biological Communities by Modeling the Occurrence of Species
Dorazio, R. M., & Royle, J. A. (2005) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/016214505000000015 · Cited by 567
Nonlinear models for repeated measurement data: An overview and update
Davidian, M., & Giltinan, D. M. (2003) · Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics · doi:10.1198/1085711032697 · Cited by 419
Metadata
- Authors
- Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1995-03
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 12-35
- ISSN
- 1061-8600 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2715
- OpenAlex
- W1967495697
- Cited by
- 1,188
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Approximations to the Log-Likelihood Function in the Nonlinear Mixed-Effects Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10618600.1995.10474663
- The paper
- Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (1995). Approximations to the Log-Likelihood Function in the Nonlinear Mixed-Effects Model. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.1995.10474663
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.