Literature DB >> 26265771

Unbiased estimation for response adaptive clinical trials.

Jack Bowden1,2, Lorenzo Trippa3.   

Abstract

Bayesian adaptive trials have the defining feature that the probability of randomization to a particular treatment arm can change as information becomes available as to its true worth. However, there is still a general reluctance to implement such designs in many clinical settings. One area of concern is that their frequentist operating characteristics are poor or, at least, poorly understood. We investigate the bias induced in the maximum likelihood estimate of a response probability parameter, p, for binary outcome by the process of adaptive randomization. We discover that it is small in magnitude and, under mild assumptions, can only be negative - causing one's estimate to be closer to zero on average than the truth. A simple unbiased estimator for p is obtained, but it is shown to have a large mean squared error. Two approaches are therefore explored to improve its precision based on inverse probability weighting and Rao-Blackwellization. We illustrate these estimation strategies using two well-known designs from the literature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical trial; Horvitz-Thompson estimator; Rao-Blackwellization; adaptive randomization; bias adjusted estimation; inverse probability weighting

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26265771      PMCID: PMC5395089          DOI: 10.1177/0962280215597716

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  25 in total

1.  A sample size adjustment procedure for clinical trials based on conditional power.

Authors:  Gang Li; Weichung J Shih; Tailiang Xie; Jiang Lu
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Adaptive clinical trials: the promise and the caution.

Authors:  Donald A Berry
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  A D Barker; C C Sigman; G J Kelloff; N M Hylton; D A Berry; L J Esserman
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2009-05-13       Impact factor: 6.875

4.  Selection and bias--two hostile brothers.

Authors:  Peter Bauer; Franz Koenig; Werner Brannath; Martin Posch
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Adaptive randomization versus interim monitoring.

Authors:  Boris Freidlin; Edward L Korn
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Bayesian designs and the control of frequentist characteristics: a practical solution.

Authors:  Steffen Ventz; Lorenzo Trippa
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-09-05       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Progression-free survival: too much risk, not enough reward?

Authors:  Brian M Alexander; Lorenzo Trippa
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 12.300

8.  Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials.

Authors:  R Simon
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-03

9.  Conditionally unbiased and near unbiased estimation of the selected treatment mean for multistage drop-the-losers trials.

Authors:  Jack Bowden; Ekkehard Glimm
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 2.207

Review 10.  Adaptive design methods in clinical trials - a review.

Authors:  Shein-Chung Chow; Mark Chang
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2008-05-02       Impact factor: 4.123

View more
  9 in total

1.  Post-Contextual-Bandit Inference.

Authors:  Aurélien Bibaut; Antoine Chambaz; Maria Dimakopoulou; Nathan Kallus; Mark van der Laan
Journal:  Adv Neural Inf Process Syst       Date:  2021-12

2.  Response-adaptive designs for binary responses: How to offer patient benefit while being robust to time trends?

Authors:  Sofía S Villar; Jack Bowden; James Wason
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 1.894

3.  A Bayesian adaptive design for clinical trials in rare diseases.

Authors:  S Faye Williamson; Peter Jacko; Sofía S Villar; Thomas Jaki
Journal:  Comput Stat Data Anal       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 1.681

4.  Treatment allocation strategies for umbrella trials in the presence of multiple biomarkers: A comparison of methods.

Authors:  Luke Ondijo Ouma; Michael J Grayling; Haiyan Zheng; James Wason
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 1.894

5.  Should RECOVERY have used response adaptive randomisation? Evidence from a simulation study.

Authors:  Tamir Sirkis; Benjamin Jones; Jack Bowden
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 4.612

6.  Some performance considerations when using multi-armed bandit algorithms in the presence of missing data.

Authors:  Xijin Chen; Kim May Lee; Sofia S Villar; David S Robertson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-12       Impact factor: 3.752

7.  Machine learning for determining lateral flow device results for testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic populations.

Authors: 
Journal:  Cell Rep Med       Date:  2022-09-27

8.  Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs.

Authors:  Thomas Burnett; Pavel Mozgunov; Philip Pallmann; Sofia S Villar; Graham M Wheeler; Thomas Jaki
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  Response adaptive intervention allocation in stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials.

Authors:  Michael J Grayling; James M S Wason; Sofía S Villar
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 2.497

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.