arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2104.01346stat.MEmath.STstat.APstat.TH
收藏

临床试验中的最佳多重检验和设计

Optimal multiple testing and design in clinical trials

Ruth Heller, Abba Krieger, Saharon Rosset

摘要:

设计临床试验的一个中心目标是找到最大化功效(或等效地最小化所需样本量)的检验,以发现受第一类错误约束的错误原假设。当有多个测试时,例如在具有多个终点的临床试验中,最佳设计和最佳程序的问题变得更加复杂。在本文中,我们解决的问题,这样的最佳测试应该如何定义,以及如何找到它们。我们回顾了不同的概念的权力,以及它们如何与研究目标,并考虑到第一类错误控制的要求和程序的性质。这导致我们明确的优化问题的目标和约束,描述其特定的desiderata。我们提出了一个完整的解决方案,推导出两个假设,具有所需的单调性,计算简单的最佳程序。对于一些优化公式,这产生了与现有程序相同的最佳程序,例如Hommel的程序或Bittman等人的程序(2009),而对于其他人,它产生了完全新颖且比现有政策更强大的政策。我们在模拟和APEX研究中广泛展示了我们的新政策的性质及其改进的能力(Cohen et al.,2016)。

英文摘要:

A central goal in designing clinical trials is to find the test that maximizes power (or equivalently minimizes required sample size) for finding a false null hypothesis subject to the constraint of type I error. When there is more than one test, such as in clinical trials with multiple endpoints, the issues of optimal design and optimal procedures become more complex. In this paper we address the question of how such optimal tests should be defined and how they can be found. We review different notions of power and how they relate to study goals, and also consider the requirements of type I error control and the nature of the procedures. This leads us to an explicit optimization problem with objective and constraints which describe its specific desiderata. We present a complete solution for deriving optimal procedures for two hypotheses, which have desired monotonicity properties, and are computationally simple. For some of the optimization formulations this yields optimal procedures that are identical to existing procedures, such as Hommel's procedure or the procedure of Bittman et al. (2009), while for others it yields completely novel and more powerful policies than existing ones. We demonstrate the nature of our novel policies and their improved power extensively in simulation and on the APEX study (Cohen et al., 2016).

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。

↑