SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2507.00680

Bayesian analysis of the causal reference-based model for missing data in clinical trials

Abstract

The statistical analysis of clinical trials is often complicated by missing data. Patients sometimes experience intercurrent events (ICEs), which usually (although not always) lead to missing subsequent outcome measurements for such individuals. The reference-based imputation methods were proposed by Carpenter et al. (2013) and have been commonly adopted for handling missing data due to ICEs when estimating treatment policy strategy estimands. Conventionally, the variance for reference-based estimators was obtained using Rubin's rules. However, Rubin's rules variance estimator is biased compared to the repeated sampling variance of the point estimator, due to uncongeniality. Repeated sampling variance estimators were proposed as an alternative to variance estimation for reference-based estimators. However, these have the property that they decrease as the proportion of ICEs increases. White et al. (2019) introduced a causal model incorporating the concept of a 'maintained treatment effect' following the occurrence of ICEs and showed that this causal model included common reference-based estimators as special cases. Building on this framework, we propose introducing a prior distribution for the maintained effect parameter to account for uncertainty in this assumption. Our approach provides inference for reference-based estimators that explicitly reflects our uncertainty about how much treatment effects are maintained after the occurrence of ICEs. In trials where no or little post-ICE data are observed, our proposed Bayesian reference-based causal model approach can be used to estimate the treatment policy treatment effect, incorporating uncertainty about the reference-based assumption. We compare the frequentist properties of this approach with existing reference-based methods through simulations and by application to an antidepressant trial.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Brendah Nansereko, Marcel Wolbers, James Carpenter, Jonathan Bartlett. 2025-07-01. Bayesian analysis of the causal reference-based model for missing data in clinical trials. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.00680

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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