Alexandra Sokolova | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Some Bayesian Perspectives on Clinical Trials

We examine three landmark clinical trials -- ECMO, CALGB~49907, and I-SPY~2 -- through a unified Bayesian framework connecting prior specification, sequential adaptation, and decision-theoretic optimisation. For ECMO, the posterior probability of treatment superiority is robust across the range of priors examined. For CALGB, predictive probability monitoring stopped enrolment at 633 instead of 1800 patients. For I-SPY~2, adaptive enrichment graduated nine of 23 arms to Phase~III. These case studies motivate a methodological contribution: exact backward induction for two-arm binary trials, where Beta-Binomial conjugacy yields closed-form transitions on the integer lattice of success counts with no quadrature. A P\'olya-Gamma augmentation bridges this to covariate-adjusted logistic regression. Simulation reveals a fundamental tension: the optimal Bayesian design reduces expected sample sizes to 14--26 per arm (versus 42--100 for alternatives) but with substantially lower power. A calibrated variant embedding the declaration threshold in the terminal utility improves power while maintaining sample-size savings; varying the per-stage cost traces a power frontier for selecting the preferred operating point, with suitability highest in patient-sparing contexts such as rare diseases and paediatrics. The P\'olya-Gamma Laplace approximation is validated against exact calculations (mean absolute error below 0.01). We discuss implications for the 2026 FDA draft guidance on Bayesian methodology.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

E-values for Adaptive Clinical Trials: Anytime-Valid Monitoring in Practice

Adaptive clinical trials rely on interim analyses, flexible stopping, and data-dependent design modifications that complicate statistical guarantees when fixed-horizon test statistics are repeatedly inspected or reused after adaptations. E-values and e-processes provide anytime-valid tests and confidence sequences that remain valid under optional stopping and optional continuation without requiring a prespecified monitoring schedule. This paper is a methodology guide for practitioners. We develop the betting-martingale construction of e-processes for two-arm randomized controlled trials, show how e-values naturally handle composite null hypotheses and support futility monitoring, and provide guidance on when e-values are appropriate, when established alternatives are preferable, and how to integrate e-value monitoring with group sequential and Bayesian adaptive workflows. A numerical study compares five monitoring rules -- naive and calibrated versions of frequentist, Bayesian, and e-value approaches -- in a two-arm binary-endpoint trial. Naive repeated testing and naive posterior thresholds inflate Type I error substantially under frequent interim looks. Among the valid methods, the calibrated group sequential rule achieves the highest power, the e-value rule provides robust anytime-valid control with moderate power, and the calibrated Bayesian rule is the most conservative. Extended simulations show that the power gap between group sequential and e-value methods depends on the monitoring schedule and reverses under continuous monitoring. The methodology, including futility monitoring, platform trial multiplicity control, and hybrid strategies combining e-values with established methods, is implemented in the open-source R package `evalinger` and situated within the regulatory framework of the January 2026 FDA draft guidance on Bayesian methodology.

stat.ME↗