Modeling restricted enrollment and optimal cost-efficient design in multicenter clinical trials

Vladimir Anisimov; Matthew Austin

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2212.12930

Modeling restricted enrollment and optimal cost-efficient design in multicenter clinical trials

Vladimir Anisimov·Matthew Austin

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Design and forecasting of patient enrollment is among the greatest challenges that the clinical research enterprize faces today, as inefficient enrollment can be a major cause of drug development delays. Therefore, the development of the innovative statistical and artificial intelligence technologies for improving the efficiency of clinical trials operation are of the imperative need. This paper is describing further developments in the innovative statistical methodology for modeling and forecasting patient enrollment. The underlying technique uses a Poisson-gamma enrollment model developed by Anisimov & Fedorov in the previous publications and is extended here to analytic modeling of the enrollment on country/region level. A new analytic technique based on the approximation of the enrollment process in country/region by a Poisson-gamma process with aggregated parameters is developed. Another innovative direction is the development of the analytic technique for modeling the enrollment under some restrictions (enrollment caps in countries). Some discussion on using historic trials for better prediction of the enrollment in the new trials is provided. These results are used for solving the problem of optimal trial cost-efficient enrollment design: find an optimal allocation of sites/countries that minimizes the global trial cost given that the probability to reach an enrollment target in time is no less than some prescribed probability. Different techniques to find an optimal solution for high dimensional optimization problem for the cases of unrestricted and restricted enrollment and for a small and large number of countries are discussed.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Vladimir Anisimov, Matthew Austin. 2022-12-25. Modeling restricted enrollment and optimal cost-efficient design in multicenter clinical trials. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.12930

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↗