Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2409.13946

Chauhan Weighted Trajectory Analysis of combined efficacy and safety outcomes for risk-benefit analysis

Utkarsh Chauhan·Daylen Mackey·John R Mackey
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Analyzing and effectively communicating the efficacy and toxicity of treatment is the basis of risk benefit analysis (RBA). More efficient and objective tools are needed. We apply Chauhan Weighted Trajectory Analysis (CWTA) to perform RBA with superior objectivity, power, and clarity. We used CWTA to perform 1000-fold simulations of RCTs using ordinal endpoints for both treatment efficacy and toxicity. RCTs were simulated with 1:1 allocation at defined sample sizes and hazard ratios. We studied the simplest case of 3 levels each of toxicity and efficacy and the general case of the advanced cancer trial, with efficacy graded by five RECIST 1.1 health statuses and toxicity by the six-point CTCAE scale (6 x 5 matrix). The latter model was applied to a real-world dose escalation phase I trial in advanced cancer. Simulations in both the 3 x 3 and the 6 x 5 advanced cancer matrix confirmed that drugs with both superior efficacy and toxicity profiles synergize for greater statistical power with CWTA-RBA. The CWTA-RBA 6 x 5 matrix reduced sample size requirements over CWTA efficacy-only analysis. Application to the dose finding phase I clinical trial provided objective, statistically significant validation for the selected dose. CWTA-RBA, by incorporating both drug efficacy and toxicity, provides a single test statistic and plot that analyzes and effectively communicates therapeutic risks and benefits. CWTA-RBA requires fewer patients than CWTA efficacy-only analysis when the experimental drug is both more effective and less toxic. CWTA-RBA facilitates the objective and efficient assessment of new therapies throughout the drug development pathway. Furthermore, several advantages over competing tests in communicating risk-benefit will assist regulatory review, clinical adoption, and understanding of therapeutic risks and benefits by clinicians and patients alike.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Utkarsh Chauhan, Daylen Mackey, John R Mackey. 2024-09-20. Chauhan Weighted Trajectory Analysis of combined efficacy and safety outcomes for risk-benefit analysis. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.13946

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↗