arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 1908.10158stat.ME

临床试验中多个相关二元结局的决策

Decision-making with multiple correlated binary outcomes in clinical trials

X. M. Kavelaars, J. Mulder, M. C. Kaptein

AI总结:

本文针对临床试验中多个相关二元结局的优效性决策问题,提出基于多元伯努利分布的贝叶斯模型和带补偿机制的灵活决策准则,并通过模拟验证其在多种设计和先验下能控制I类错误并实现高效无偏决策。

摘要:

临床试验通常评估多个结局变量,以全面了解新疗法的效果。由此产生的多维洞察有助于在治疗优效性方面做出临床相关且高效的决策。然而,用于对多个结局做出优效性决策的常用统计程序存在两个重要缺陷:1)结局变量通常被单独建模,因而未能考虑结局之间的关系;2)优效性通常被定义为在单个、任意或所有结局上存在相关差异;并且缺乏一种补偿机制,使得一个或多个结局上的较大正向效应能够抵消其他结局上的较小负向效应。为了解决这些缺陷,本文提出:1)一个基于多元伯努利分布的相关二元结局分析的贝叶斯模型;以及2)一个具有补偿机制的灵活决策准则,该机制能够捕捉各结局的相对重要性。模拟研究表明,在I类错误率得到适当控制的情况下,可以做出高效且无偏的决策。该框架的性能在以下方面得到展示:1)固定设计、成组序贯设计和适应性设计;以及2)无信息先验分布和有信息先验分布。

英文摘要:

Clinical trials often evaluate multiple outcome variables to form a comprehensive picture of the effects of a new treatment. The resulting multidimensional insight contributes to clinically relevant and efficient decision-making about treatment superiority. Common statistical procedures to make these superiority decisions with multiple outcomes have two important shortcomings however: 1) Outcome variables are often modeled individually, and consequently fail to consider the relation between outcomes; and 2) superiority is often defined as a relevant difference on a single, on any, or on all outcomes(s); and lacks a compensatory mechanism that allows large positive effects on one or multiple outcome(s) to outweigh small negative effects on other outcomes. To address these shortcomings, this paper proposes 1) a Bayesian model for the analysis of correlated binary outcomes based on the multivariate Bernoulli distribution; and 2) a flexible decision criterion with a compensatory mechanism that captures the relative importance of the outcomes. A simulation study demonstrates that efficient and unbiased decisions can be made while Type I error rates are properly controlled. The performance of the framework is illustrated for 1) fixed, group sequential, and adaptive designs; and 2) non-informative and informative prior distributions.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑