Adaptive treatment allocation and selection in multi-arm clinical trials: a Bayesian perspective

Elja Arjas; Dario Gasbarra

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2104.03398

Adaptive treatment allocation and selection in multi-arm clinical trials: a Bayesian perspective

Elja Arjas·Dario Gasbarra

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Clinical trials are an instrument for making informed decisions based on evidence from well-designed experiments. Here we consider adaptive designs mainly from the perspective of multi-arm Phase II clinical trials, in which one or more experimental treatments are compared to a control. Treatment allocation of individual trial participants is assumed to take place according to a fixed block randomization, albeit with an important twist: The performance of each treatment arm is assessed after every measured outcome, in terms of the posterior distribution of a corresponding model parameter. Different treatments arms are then compared to each other, according to pre-defined criteria and using the joint posterior as the basis for such assessment. If a treatment is found to be sufficiently clearly inferior to the currently best candidate, it can be closed off either temporarily or permanently from further participant accrual. The latter possibility provides a method for adaptive treatment selection, including early stopping of the trial. The main development in the paper is in terms of binary outcomes, but some extensions, notably for handling time-to-event data, are discussed as well. The presentation is to a large extent comparative and expository.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Elja Arjas, Dario Gasbarra. 2021-04-07. Adaptive treatment allocation and selection in multi-arm clinical trials: a Bayesian perspective. https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.03398

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗