评估作为篮子试验基本信息共享工具的分层 beta-二叉模型。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics Pub Date : 2024-09-26 DOI:10.1080/10543406.2024.2399203
Moritz Pohl, Lukas D Sauer, Meinhard Kieser
{"title":"评估作为篮子试验基本信息共享工具的分层 beta-二叉模型。","authors":"Moritz Pohl, Lukas D Sauer, Meinhard Kieser","doi":"10.1080/10543406.2024.2399203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The majority of statistical methods to share information in basket trials are based on a Bayesian hierarchical model with a common normal distribution for the logit-transformed response rates. The methods are of varying complexity, yet they all use this basic model. Generally, complexity is an obstacle for the application in clinical trials and that includes the use of the logit-transformation. The transformation complicates the model and impedes a direct interpretation of the hyperparameters. On the other hand, there exist basket trial designs which directly work on the probability scale of the response rate which facilitates the understanding of the model for many stakeholders. In order to reduce unnecessary complexity, we considered using a hierarchical beta-binomial model instead of the transformed models. This article investigates whether this approach is a practicable alternative to the commonly applied sharing tools based on a logit-transformation of the response rates. For this purpose, we performed a systematic comparison of the two models, starting with the distributional assumptions for the response rates, continuing with the Bayesian behavior together with binomial data in an independent setting and ended with a simulation study for the hierarchical model under various data and prior scenarios. All Bayesian comparisons require equal starting points, wherefore we propose a calibration procedure to choose similar priors for the models. The evaluation of the sharing property additionally required an evaluation measure for simulation results, which we derived in this work. The conclusion of the comparison is that the hierarchical beta-binomial model is a feasible alternative basic model to share information in basket trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":54870,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics","volume":" ","pages":"1-33"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the hierarchical beta-binomial model as a basic information sharing tool in basket trials.\",\"authors\":\"Moritz Pohl, Lukas D Sauer, Meinhard Kieser\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10543406.2024.2399203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The majority of statistical methods to share information in basket trials are based on a Bayesian hierarchical model with a common normal distribution for the logit-transformed response rates. The methods are of varying complexity, yet they all use this basic model. Generally, complexity is an obstacle for the application in clinical trials and that includes the use of the logit-transformation. The transformation complicates the model and impedes a direct interpretation of the hyperparameters. On the other hand, there exist basket trial designs which directly work on the probability scale of the response rate which facilitates the understanding of the model for many stakeholders. In order to reduce unnecessary complexity, we considered using a hierarchical beta-binomial model instead of the transformed models. This article investigates whether this approach is a practicable alternative to the commonly applied sharing tools based on a logit-transformation of the response rates. For this purpose, we performed a systematic comparison of the two models, starting with the distributional assumptions for the response rates, continuing with the Bayesian behavior together with binomial data in an independent setting and ended with a simulation study for the hierarchical model under various data and prior scenarios. All Bayesian comparisons require equal starting points, wherefore we propose a calibration procedure to choose similar priors for the models. The evaluation of the sharing property additionally required an evaluation measure for simulation results, which we derived in this work. The conclusion of the comparison is that the hierarchical beta-binomial model is a feasible alternative basic model to share information in basket trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2024.2399203\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2024.2399203","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

摘要

篮子试验中共享信息的大多数统计方法都基于贝叶斯分层模型,对数转换后的应答率采用常见的正态分布。这些方法的复杂程度各不相同,但都使用了这一基本模型。一般来说,复杂性是在临床试验中应用的一个障碍,其中包括使用 logit 变换。这种转换使模型复杂化,妨碍了对超参数的直接解释。另一方面,有一些篮子试验设计直接使用响应率的概率标度,这有助于许多利益相关者对模型的理解。为了减少不必要的复杂性,我们考虑使用分层贝塔二叉模型来代替转换模型。本文研究了这一方法是否可替代基于对数转换响应率的常用共享工具。为此,我们对这两种模型进行了系统的比较,首先对响应率的分布进行了假设,然后在独立设置中结合二叉数据对贝叶斯行为进行了比较,最后在各种数据和先验情况下对分层模型进行了模拟研究。所有贝叶斯比较都需要相同的起点,因此我们提出了一个校准程序,为模型选择相似的先验。对共享属性的评估还需要一个模拟结果的评估指标,我们在这项工作中得出了这一指标。比较得出的结论是,分层贝塔二叉模型是篮子试验中共享信息的一个可行的替代基本模型。
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
Assessing the hierarchical beta-binomial model as a basic information sharing tool in basket trials.

The majority of statistical methods to share information in basket trials are based on a Bayesian hierarchical model with a common normal distribution for the logit-transformed response rates. The methods are of varying complexity, yet they all use this basic model. Generally, complexity is an obstacle for the application in clinical trials and that includes the use of the logit-transformation. The transformation complicates the model and impedes a direct interpretation of the hyperparameters. On the other hand, there exist basket trial designs which directly work on the probability scale of the response rate which facilitates the understanding of the model for many stakeholders. In order to reduce unnecessary complexity, we considered using a hierarchical beta-binomial model instead of the transformed models. This article investigates whether this approach is a practicable alternative to the commonly applied sharing tools based on a logit-transformation of the response rates. For this purpose, we performed a systematic comparison of the two models, starting with the distributional assumptions for the response rates, continuing with the Bayesian behavior together with binomial data in an independent setting and ended with a simulation study for the hierarchical model under various data and prior scenarios. All Bayesian comparisons require equal starting points, wherefore we propose a calibration procedure to choose similar priors for the models. The evaluation of the sharing property additionally required an evaluation measure for simulation results, which we derived in this work. The conclusion of the comparison is that the hierarchical beta-binomial model is a feasible alternative basic model to share information in basket trials.

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
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 医学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
18.20%
发文量
71
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, a rapid publication journal, discusses quality applications of statistics in biopharmaceutical research and development. Now publishing six times per year, it includes expositions of statistical methodology with immediate applicability to biopharmaceutical research in the form of full-length and short manuscripts, review articles, selected/invited conference papers, short articles, and letters to the editor. Addressing timely and provocative topics important to the biostatistical profession, the journal covers: Drug, device, and biological research and development; Drug screening and drug design; Assessment of pharmacological activity; Pharmaceutical formulation and scale-up; Preclinical safety assessment; Bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetics; Phase, I, II, and III clinical development including complex innovative designs; Premarket approval assessment of clinical safety; Postmarketing surveillance; Big data and artificial intelligence and applications.
期刊最新文献
Revolutionizing cardiovascular disease classification through machine learning and statistical methods. The 2009 FDA PRO guidance, Potential Type I error, Descriptive Statistics and Pragmatic estimation of the number of interviews for item elicitation. BOP2-TE: Bayesian optimal phase 2 design for jointly monitoring efficacy and toxicity with application to dose optimization. Latent class analysis of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Machine learning approach for detection of MACE events within clinical trial data.
×
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