SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2603.27010

Bayesian analysis of the causal reference-based model for missing data in clinical trials, accommodating partially observed post-intercurrent event data

Abstract

When treatment policy estimands are of interest, clinical trials often attempt to collect patient data after intercurrent events (ICEs), although such data are often limited. Retrieved dropout imputation methods, which use pre-ICE and available post-ICE data to impute missing post-ICE outcomes, are commonly applied but often yield treatment effect estimates with large standard errors (SEs) and may encounter convergence issues when post-ICE data are sparse. Reference-based imputation methods are also used, but they rely on strong assumptions about post-ICE outcomes, which can lead to biased estimates if these assumptions are incorrect. To address these limitations, we previously proposed the reference-based Bayesian causal model (BCM), which incorporates a prior on the maintained effect parameter to reflect uncertainty in reference-based assumptions for missing post-ICE data. Our earlier work assumed no post-ICE data were observed. Here, we extend the BCM to incorporate available post-ICE outcomes, providing an approach that mitigates limitations of both retrieved-dropout and standard reference-based methods. We propose both a fully Bayesian model and an imputation-based approach. A simulation study was conducted to evaluate the frequentist properties of the proposed methods in settings with partially observed post-ICE data and to compare performance with existing approaches. Retrieved-dropout methods produced higher estimated SEs than the BCM, particularly when post-ICE data were sparse. Under the BCM, treatment effect SEs increased as post-ICE data became more limited for both modelling approaches. Importantly, this increase can be controlled through the prior variance of the maintained effect parameter, with more informative priors stabilising estimation when post-ICE data are scarce.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Brendah Nansereko, Marcel Wolbers, James R. Carpenter, Jonathan W. Bartlett. 2026-03-27. Bayesian analysis of the causal reference-based model for missing data in clinical trials, accommodating partially observed post-intercurrent event data. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.27010

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