Digital twins and Bayesian dynamic borrowing: Two recent approaches for incorporating historical control data.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmaceutical Statistics Pub Date : 2024-03-04 DOI:10.1002/pst.2376
Carl-Fredrik Burman, Erik Hermansson, David Bock, Stefan Franzén, David Svensson
{"title":"Digital twins and Bayesian dynamic borrowing: Two recent approaches for incorporating historical control data.","authors":"Carl-Fredrik Burman, Erik Hermansson, David Bock, Stefan Franzén, David Svensson","doi":"10.1002/pst.2376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent years have seen an increasing interest in incorporating external control data for designing and evaluating randomized clinical trials (RCT). This may decrease costs and shorten inclusion times by reducing sample sizes. For small populations, with limited recruitment, this can be especially important. Bayesian dynamic borrowing (BDB) has been a popular choice as it claims to protect against potential prior data conflict. Digital twins (DT) has recently been proposed as another method to utilize historical data. DT, also known as PROCOVA™, is based on constructing a prognostic score from historical control data, typically using machine learning. This score is included in a pre-specified ANCOVA as the primary analysis of the RCT. The promise of this idea is power increase while guaranteeing strong type 1 error control. In this paper, we apply analytic derivations and simulations to analyze and discuss examples of these two approaches. We conclude that BDB and DT, although similar in scope, have fundamental differences which need be considered in the specific application. The inflation of the type 1 error is a serious issue for BDB, while more evidence is needed of a tangible value of DT for real RCTs.</p>","PeriodicalId":19934,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceutical Statistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceutical Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2376","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent years have seen an increasing interest in incorporating external control data for designing and evaluating randomized clinical trials (RCT). This may decrease costs and shorten inclusion times by reducing sample sizes. For small populations, with limited recruitment, this can be especially important. Bayesian dynamic borrowing (BDB) has been a popular choice as it claims to protect against potential prior data conflict. Digital twins (DT) has recently been proposed as another method to utilize historical data. DT, also known as PROCOVA™, is based on constructing a prognostic score from historical control data, typically using machine learning. This score is included in a pre-specified ANCOVA as the primary analysis of the RCT. The promise of this idea is power increase while guaranteeing strong type 1 error control. In this paper, we apply analytic derivations and simulations to analyze and discuss examples of these two approaches. We conclude that BDB and DT, although similar in scope, have fundamental differences which need be considered in the specific application. The inflation of the type 1 error is a serious issue for BDB, while more evidence is needed of a tangible value of DT for real RCTs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
数字双胞胎和贝叶斯动态借贷:纳入历史控制数据的两种最新方法。
近年来,人们越来越关注在设计和评估随机临床试验(RCT)时纳入外部对照数据。这可以通过减少样本量来降低成本和缩短纳入时间。对于招募人数有限的小规模人群来说,这一点尤为重要。贝叶斯动态借用(BDB)一直是一种流行的选择,因为它声称可以防止潜在的先验数据冲突。数字孪生(DT)是最近提出的另一种利用历史数据的方法。DT 也称为 PROCOVA™,其基础是从历史对照数据中构建一个预后评分,通常使用机器学习。该评分被纳入预先指定的方差分析中,作为 RCT 的主要分析。这种方法的优点是在保证严格的 1 类错误控制的同时,还能提高疗效。在本文中,我们运用分析推导和模拟来分析和讨论这两种方法的实例。我们的结论是,BDB 和 DT 虽然在范围上相似,但在具体应用中需要考虑它们的根本区别。对于 BDB 而言,1 类误差的膨胀是一个严重的问题,而对于 DT 而言,则需要更多证据来证明其在实际 RCT 中的实际价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pharmaceutical Statistics
Pharmaceutical Statistics 医学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
90
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pharmaceutical Statistics is an industry-led initiative, tackling real problems in statistical applications. The Journal publishes papers that share experiences in the practical application of statistics within the pharmaceutical industry. It covers all aspects of pharmaceutical statistical applications from discovery, through pre-clinical development, clinical development, post-marketing surveillance, consumer health, production, epidemiology, and health economics. The Journal is both international and multidisciplinary. It includes high quality practical papers, case studies and review papers.
期刊最新文献
On Some Modeling Issues in Estimating Vaccine Efficacy Propensity Score Analysis With Baseline and Follow-Up Measurements of the Outcome Variable. Generalizing Treatment Effect to a Target Population Without Individual Patient Data in a Real-World Setting. Comparative Analyses of Bioequivalence Assessment Methods for In Vitro Permeation Test Data. Simultaneous Inference Using Multiple Marginal Models.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1