A Bayesian adaptive enrichment design using aggregate historical data to inform individualized treatment recommendations

Lara Maleyeff; Shirin Golchi; Erica E. M. Moodie

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2603.09919

A Bayesian adaptive enrichment design using aggregate historical data to inform individualized treatment recommendations

Lara Maleyeff·Shirin Golchi·Erica E. M. Moodie

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Adaptive enrichment trials aim to identify and recruit participants most likely to benefit from treatment based on evolving biomarker evidence, with the goal of informing individualized treatment recommendations. Bayesian methods are well suited to these designs because they allow external information to be incorporated in a principled manner. In practice, prior studies often provide only summary-level information, with subgroup-specific estimates unavailable due to design or privacy constraints. Existing dynamic borrowing approaches therefore rely on aggregate measures, such as the average treatment effect, and implicitly assume that historical information maps directly onto model parameters. In adaptive enrichment settings aimed at identifying individualized treatment effects, however, subgroup-specific treatment parameters are not identifiable when only marginal historical effects are available. To address this gap, we propose a Bayesian adaptive enrichment design that borrows information from external studies using a normalized power prior anchored on one or more summary measures, such as the average treatment effect. { To our knowledge, no existing method addresses this gap.} Interim analyses use posterior probabilities to guide early stopping for efficacy or futility, or to continue recruitment within promising biomarker-defined subgroups. Simulation studies evaluate operating characteristics across historical bias, sample size, and prior informativeness. Together with a motivating future trial in obstructive sleep apnea, the results show efficiency gains versus non-borrowing designs, including improved power, earlier stopping, and reduced expected sample size.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Lara Maleyeff, Shirin Golchi, Erica E. M. Moodie. 2026-03-10. A Bayesian adaptive enrichment design using aggregate historical data to inform individualized treatment recommendations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.09919

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↗