缺失结果数据的临床试验的随机化推断

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research Pub Date : 2023-09-27 DOI:10.1080/19466315.2023.2250119
Nicole Heussen, Ralf-Dieter Hilgers, William F. Rosenberger, Xiao Tan, Diane Uschner
{"title":"缺失结果数据的临床试验的随机化推断","authors":"Nicole Heussen, Ralf-Dieter Hilgers, William F. Rosenberger, Xiao Tan, Diane Uschner","doi":"10.1080/19466315.2023.2250119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractRandomization-based inference is a natural way to analyze data from a clinical trial. But the presence of missing outcome data is problematic: if the data are removed, the randomization distribution is destroyed and randomization tests have no validity. In this paper we describe two approaches to imputing values for missing data that preserve the randomization distribution. We then compare these methods to population-based and parametric imputation approaches that are in standard use to compare error rates under both homogeneous and heterogeneous population models. We also describe randomization-based analogs of standard missing data mechanisms and describe a randomization-based procedure to determine if data are missing completely at random. We conclude that randomization-based methods are a reasonable approach to missing data that perform comparably to population-based methods.Keywords: Conditional reference setMissing completely at randomMissing at randomRandomization testDisclaimerAs a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of an accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proofs will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to these versions also. FundingThe author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.","PeriodicalId":51280,"journal":{"name":"Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomization-Based Inference for Clinical Trials with Missing Outcome Data\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Heussen, Ralf-Dieter Hilgers, William F. Rosenberger, Xiao Tan, Diane Uschner\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19466315.2023.2250119\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractRandomization-based inference is a natural way to analyze data from a clinical trial. But the presence of missing outcome data is problematic: if the data are removed, the randomization distribution is destroyed and randomization tests have no validity. In this paper we describe two approaches to imputing values for missing data that preserve the randomization distribution. We then compare these methods to population-based and parametric imputation approaches that are in standard use to compare error rates under both homogeneous and heterogeneous population models. We also describe randomization-based analogs of standard missing data mechanisms and describe a randomization-based procedure to determine if data are missing completely at random. We conclude that randomization-based methods are a reasonable approach to missing data that perform comparably to population-based methods.Keywords: Conditional reference setMissing completely at randomMissing at randomRandomization testDisclaimerAs a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of an accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proofs will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to these versions also. FundingThe author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51280,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19466315.2023.2250119\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19466315.2023.2250119","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

基于随机化的推理是分析临床试验数据的一种自然方法。但是缺失结果数据的存在是有问题的:如果数据被删除,随机化分布被破坏,随机化测试没有有效性。在本文中,我们描述了两种方法来输入值的缺失数据,保持随机化分布。然后,我们将这些方法与标准使用的基于人口和参数代入方法进行比较,以比较同质和异质人口模型下的错误率。我们还描述了基于随机化的标准丢失数据机制的类似物,并描述了基于随机化的程序来确定数据是否完全随机丢失。我们得出的结论是,基于随机的方法是一种合理的方法,可以与基于人口的方法相比较。关键词:条件引用set完全随机缺失测试免责声明作为对作者和研究人员的服务,我们提供此版本的已接受稿件(AM)。在最终出版版本记录(VoR)之前,将对该手稿进行编辑、排版和审查。在制作和印前,可能会发现可能影响内容的错误,所有适用于期刊的法律免责声明也与这些版本有关。作者报告说,没有与本文所述工作相关的资金。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Randomization-Based Inference for Clinical Trials with Missing Outcome Data
AbstractRandomization-based inference is a natural way to analyze data from a clinical trial. But the presence of missing outcome data is problematic: if the data are removed, the randomization distribution is destroyed and randomization tests have no validity. In this paper we describe two approaches to imputing values for missing data that preserve the randomization distribution. We then compare these methods to population-based and parametric imputation approaches that are in standard use to compare error rates under both homogeneous and heterogeneous population models. We also describe randomization-based analogs of standard missing data mechanisms and describe a randomization-based procedure to determine if data are missing completely at random. We conclude that randomization-based methods are a reasonable approach to missing data that perform comparably to population-based methods.Keywords: Conditional reference setMissing completely at randomMissing at randomRandomization testDisclaimerAs a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of an accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proofs will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to these versions also. FundingThe author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research
Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY-STATISTICS & PROBABILITY
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research ( SBR), publishes articles that focus on the needs of researchers and applied statisticians in biopharmaceutical industries; academic biostatisticians from schools of medicine, veterinary medicine, public health, and pharmacy; statisticians and quantitative analysts working in regulatory agencies (e.g., U.S. Food and Drug Administration and its counterpart in other countries); statisticians with an interest in adopting methodology presented in this journal to their own fields; and nonstatisticians with an interest in applying statistical methods to biopharmaceutical problems. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research accepts papers that discuss appropriate statistical methodology and information regarding the use of statistics in all phases of research, development, and practice in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, device, and diagnostics industries. Articles should focus on the development of novel statistical methods, novel applications of current methods, or the innovative application of statistical principles that can be used by statistical practitioners in these disciplines. Areas of application may include statistical methods for drug discovery, including papers that address issues of multiplicity, sequential trials, adaptive designs, etc.; preclinical and clinical studies; genomics and proteomics; bioassay; biomarkers and surrogate markers; models and analyses of drug history, including pharmacoeconomics, product life cycle, detection of adverse events in clinical studies, and postmarketing risk assessment; regulatory guidelines, including issues of standardization of terminology (e.g., CDISC), tolerance and specification limits related to pharmaceutical practice, and novel methods of drug approval; and detection of adverse events in clinical and toxicological studies. Tutorial articles also are welcome. Articles should include demonstrable evidence of the usefulness of this methodology (presumably by means of an application). The Editorial Board of SBR intends to ensure that the journal continually provides important, useful, and timely information. To accomplish this, the board strives to attract outstanding articles by seeing that each submission receives a careful, thorough, and prompt review. Authors can choose to publish gold open access in this journal.
期刊最新文献
A Basket Trial Design Based on Power Priors Remembering Gregory Campbell (1949-2023): An Accomplished Leader, Mentor, and Biostatistical Innovator Combining Recurrent and Terminal Events Into a Composite Endpoint May Be Problematic Simultaneous Confidence Intervals for Signal Detection and Ascertaining Precision of Adverse Event Rates in Clinical Trials Bayesian shrinkage estimation of credible subgroups for count data with excess zeros
×
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