Literature DB >> 16807130

Minimization method for balancing continuous prognostic variables between treatment and control groups using Kullback-Leibler divergence.

Akira Endo1, Fumio Nagatani, Chikuma Hamada, Isao Yoshimura.   

Abstract

This paper proposes a method for balancing prognostic variables between treatment and control groups in design of clinical trials. It assumes that some of prognostic variables are continuous and others are categorical and that they are independently distributed. The proposed method uses the Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) as the index of difference in distribution between two groups. It sequentially allocates each subject to a group using a biased coin method so as to reduce the estimate of KLD. That is, when first i subjects have been allocated to two groups and the (i+1)th subject is enrolled, the KLD is estimated if the (i+1)th subject was to be allocated to either of the groups, and the subject is then allocated with a certain probability, e.g. 0.80, so as to make the KLD small. Simulation studies based on the hypothetical prognostic variables and on the actual data of hyperlipidemia patients were carried out in order to compare the proposed method with the Pocock-Simon method, which transforms the continuous prognostic variables into categorical variables by dividing the whole scale into several categories. The p values of homogeneity test of means and variances were used to evaluate the achieved balance. The observed p values in the proposed method were better than those in the Pocock-Simon method. In addition to the balance, the precision of parameter estimates assuming analysis of covariance model was examined. The results showed the precision of estimators tended to be more stable in the proposed method than the Pocock-Simon method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16807130     DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.05.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials        ISSN: 1551-7144            Impact factor:   2.226


  9 in total

1.  Quantifying the cost in power of ignoring continuous covariate imbalances in clinical trial randomization.

Authors:  Jody Ciolino; Wenle Zhao; Renee' Martin; Yuko Palesch
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2010-11-13       Impact factor: 2.226

2.  A simulation study of the validity and efficiency of design-adaptive allocation to two groups in the regression situation.

Authors:  Mikel Aickin
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 0.968

3.  Home-Based, Adaptive Cognitive Training for Cognitively Normal Older adults: Initial Efficacy Trial.

Authors:  Hyun Kyu Lee; James D Kent; Christopher Wendel; Fredric D Wolinsky; Eric D Foster; Michael M Merzenich; Michelle W Voss
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 4.077

4.  Online Social Cognition Training in Schizophrenia: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Multi-Site Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Mor Nahum; Hyunkyu Lee; Melissa Fisher; Michael F Green; Christine I Hooker; Joseph Ventura; Joshua T Jordan; Annika Rose; Sarah-Jane Kim; Kristen M Haut; Michael M Merzenich; Sophia Vinogradov
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2021-01-23       Impact factor: 9.306

5.  Nicotinamide N-methyltransferase knockdown protects against diet-induced obesity.

Authors:  Daniel Kraus; Qin Yang; Dong Kong; Alexander S Banks; Lin Zhang; Joseph T Rodgers; Eija Pirinen; Thomas C Pulinilkunnil; Fengying Gong; Ya-chin Wang; Yana Cen; Anthony A Sauve; John M Asara; Odile D Peroni; Brett P Monia; Sanjay Bhanot; Leena Alhonen; Pere Puigserver; Barbara B Kahn
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  The Shiny Balancer - software and imbalance criteria for optimally balanced treatment allocation in small RCTs and cRCTs.

Authors:  Thomas Grischott
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Ideal vs. real: a systematic review on handling covariates in randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Jody D Ciolino; Hannah L Palac; Amy Yang; Mireya Vaca; Hayley M Belli
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  An easily accessible Web-based minimization random allocation system for clinical trials.

Authors:  Lan Xiao; Qiwen Huang; Veronica Yank; Jun Ma
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  When randomisation is not good enough: Matching groups in intervention studies.

Authors:  Francesco Sella; Gal Raz; Roi Cohen Kadosh
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-07-09
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.