贝叶斯观点对确证试验样本大小推导的回顾。

IF 1.8 4区 数学 Q1 STATISTICS & PROBABILITY American Statistician Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-04-22 DOI:10.1080/00031305.2021.1901782
Kevin Kunzmann, Michael J Grayling, Kim May Lee, David S Robertson, Kaspar Rufibach, James M S Wason
{"title":"贝叶斯观点对确证试验样本大小推导的回顾。","authors":"Kevin Kunzmann, Michael J Grayling, Kim May Lee, David S Robertson, Kaspar Rufibach, James M S Wason","doi":"10.1080/00031305.2021.1901782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sample size derivation is a crucial element of planning any confirmatory trial. The required sample size is typically derived based on constraints on the maximal acceptable Type I error rate and minimal desired power. Power depends on the unknown true effect and tends to be calculated either for the smallest relevant effect or a likely point alternative. The former might be problematic if the minimal relevant effect is close to the null, thus requiring an excessively large sample size, while the latter is dubious since it does not account for the a priori uncertainty about the likely alternative effect. A Bayesian perspective on sample size derivation for a frequentist trial can reconcile arguments about the relative a priori plausibility of alternative effects with ideas based on the relevance of effect sizes. Many suggestions as to how such \"hybrid\" approaches could be implemented in practice have been put forward. However, key quantities are often defined in subtly different ways in the literature. Starting from the traditional entirely frequentist approach to sample size derivation, we derive consistent definitions for the most commonly used hybrid quantities and highlight connections, before discussing and demonstrating their use in sample size derivation for clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":50801,"journal":{"name":"American Statistician","volume":" ","pages":"424-432"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7612172/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Review of Bayesian Perspectives on Sample Size Derivation for Confirmatory Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Kunzmann, Michael J Grayling, Kim May Lee, David S Robertson, Kaspar Rufibach, James M S Wason\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00031305.2021.1901782\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Sample size derivation is a crucial element of planning any confirmatory trial. The required sample size is typically derived based on constraints on the maximal acceptable Type I error rate and minimal desired power. Power depends on the unknown true effect and tends to be calculated either for the smallest relevant effect or a likely point alternative. The former might be problematic if the minimal relevant effect is close to the null, thus requiring an excessively large sample size, while the latter is dubious since it does not account for the a priori uncertainty about the likely alternative effect. A Bayesian perspective on sample size derivation for a frequentist trial can reconcile arguments about the relative a priori plausibility of alternative effects with ideas based on the relevance of effect sizes. Many suggestions as to how such \\\"hybrid\\\" approaches could be implemented in practice have been put forward. However, key quantities are often defined in subtly different ways in the literature. Starting from the traditional entirely frequentist approach to sample size derivation, we derive consistent definitions for the most commonly used hybrid quantities and highlight connections, before discussing and demonstrating their use in sample size derivation for clinical trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50801,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Statistician\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"424-432\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7612172/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Statistician\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2021.1901782\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"数学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/4/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Statistician","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2021.1901782","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

样本量的确定是计划任何确证试验的关键因素。所需样本量通常是根据可接受的最大 I 类错误率和最小期望功率的限制条件得出的。作用力取决于未知的真实效应,往往根据最小相关效应或可能的点替代效应来计算。如果最小相关效应接近于空值,前者可能会有问题,因此需要过大的样本量,而后者则值得怀疑,因为它没有考虑到可能的替代效应的先验不确定性。从贝叶斯的角度来推导频数试验的样本量,可以调和替代效应的相对先验可信性与基于效应大小相关性的观点。关于如何在实践中采用这种 "混合 "方法,已经提出了许多建议。然而,文献中对关键量的定义往往存在微妙的差异。我们从传统的完全频数主义的样本量推导方法出发,推导出最常用的混合量的一致定义并强调其联系,然后讨论并演示它们在临床试验样本量推导中的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
A Review of Bayesian Perspectives on Sample Size Derivation for Confirmatory Trials.

Sample size derivation is a crucial element of planning any confirmatory trial. The required sample size is typically derived based on constraints on the maximal acceptable Type I error rate and minimal desired power. Power depends on the unknown true effect and tends to be calculated either for the smallest relevant effect or a likely point alternative. The former might be problematic if the minimal relevant effect is close to the null, thus requiring an excessively large sample size, while the latter is dubious since it does not account for the a priori uncertainty about the likely alternative effect. A Bayesian perspective on sample size derivation for a frequentist trial can reconcile arguments about the relative a priori plausibility of alternative effects with ideas based on the relevance of effect sizes. Many suggestions as to how such "hybrid" approaches could be implemented in practice have been put forward. However, key quantities are often defined in subtly different ways in the literature. Starting from the traditional entirely frequentist approach to sample size derivation, we derive consistent definitions for the most commonly used hybrid quantities and highlight connections, before discussing and demonstrating their use in sample size derivation for clinical 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
American Statistician
American Statistician 数学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
64
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Are you looking for general-interest articles about current national and international statistical problems and programs; interesting and fun articles of a general nature about statistics and its applications; or the teaching of statistics? Then you are looking for The American Statistician (TAS), published quarterly by the American Statistical Association. TAS contains timely articles organized into the following sections: Statistical Practice, General, Teacher''s Corner, History Corner, Interdisciplinary, Statistical Computing and Graphics, Reviews of Books and Teaching Materials, and Letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Causal Inference with Complex Surveys: A Unified Perspective on Sample Selection and Exposure Selection Performance Analysis of NSUM Estimators in Social-Network Topologies Cross-validatory Z-Residual for Diagnosing Shared Frailty Models A Pareto tail plot without moment restrictions Sparse-group boosting: Unbiased group and variable selection
×
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