SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Haitao Chu

Publications and source records attributed to Haitao Chu.

16 recordsLinked to original sources

Collaborative Indirect Treatment Comparisons with Multiple Distributed Single-arm Trials

When randomized controlled trials are impractical or unethical to simultaneously compare multiple treatments, indirect treatment comparisons using single-arm trials offer valuable evidence for health technology assessments, especially for rare diseases and early-phase drug development. In practice, each sponsor conducts a single-arm trial on its own drug with restricted data-sharing and targets effects in its trial population, which can lead to unfair comparisons. This motivates methods for fair treatment comparisons across a range of target populations in distributed networks of single-arm trials sharing only aggregated data. Existing federated methods, which assume at least one site contains all treatments and allow pooling of treatment groups within the same site, cannot address this problem. We propose a novel distributed augmented calibration weighting (DAC) method to simultaneously estimate the pairwise average treatment effects (ATEs) across all trial population combinations in a distributed network of multiple single-arm trials. Using two communication rounds, DAC estimators balance covariates via calibration weighting, incorporate flexible nuisance parameter estimation, achieve doubly robust consistency, and yield results identical to pooled-data analysis. When nuisance parameters are estimated parametrically, DAC estimators are enhanced to achieve doubly robust inference with minimal squared first-order asymptotic bias. Simulations and a real-data application show good performance.

stat.ME

Empowering Clinical Trial Design through AI: A Randomized Evaluation of PowerGPT

Sample size calculations for power analysis are critical for clinical research and trial design, yet their complexity and reliance on statistical expertise create barriers for many researchers. We introduce PowerGPT, an AI-powered system integrating large language models (LLMs) with statistical engines to automate test selection and sample size estimation in trial design. In a randomized trial to evaluate its effectiveness, PowerGPT significantly improved task completion rates (99.3% vs. 88.9% for test selection, 99.3% vs. 77.8% for sample size calculation) and accuracy (94.1% vs. 55.4% in sample size estimation, p < 0.001), while reducing average completion time (4.0 vs. 9.3 minutes, p < 0.001). These gains were consistent across various statistical tests and benefited both statisticians and non-statisticians as well as bridging expertise gaps. Already under deployment across multiple institutions, PowerGPT represents a scalable AI-driven approach that enhances accessibility, efficiency, and accuracy in statistical power analysis for clinical research.

cs.AI

Bias reduction in g-computation for covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials

G-computation is a powerful method for estimating unconditional treatment effects with covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials. It typically relies on fitting canonical generalized linear models. However, this could be problematic when the sample size or event number is small relative to the number of covariates. Common issues include the underestimation of the variance and the potential nonexistence of maximum likelihood estimators. Bias reduction methods are commonly employed to address these issues, including Firth correction, which guarantees the existence of corresponding estimates. Yet, their application within g-computation remains underexplored. In this article, we analyze the asymptotic bias of g-computation estimators and propose a novel bias-reduction method that improves both estimation and inference. Our approach performs bias correction via generalized Oaxaca-Blinder estimators, and thus the resulting estimators are guaranteed to be bounded. The proposed debiased estimators use slightly modified versions of maximum likelihood or Firth correction estimators for nuisance parameters. We also introduce a simple small-sample bias adjustment for variance estimation to improve finite-sample inference validity. Through extensive simulations, we demonstrate that our proposed method offers superior finite-sample performance, effectively addressing the bias-efficiency tradeoff. Finally, we illustrate its practical utility by reanalyzing a completed randomized clinical trial. In this example, our method improves precision in a small subgroup analysis for which the standard method fails to fit the regression model.

stat.ME

A robust score test in g-computation for covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials leveraging different variance estimators via influence functions

G-computation has become a widely used robust method for estimating unconditional (marginal) treatment effects with covariate adjustment in the analysis of randomized clinical trials. Statistical inference in this context typically relies on the Wald test or Wald interval, which can be easily implemented using a consistent variance estimator. However, existing literature suggests that when sample sizes are small or when parameters of interest are near boundary values, Wald-based methods may be less reliable due to type I error rate inflation and insufficient interval coverage. In this article, we propose a robust score test for g-computation estimators in the context of two-sample treatment comparisons. The proposed test is asymptotically valid under simple and stratified (biased-coin) randomization schemes, even when regression models are misspecified. These test statistics can be conveniently computed using existing variance estimators, and the corresponding confidence intervals have closed-form expressions, making them convenient to implement. Through extensive simulations, we demonstrate the superior finite-sample performance of the proposed method. Finally, we apply the proposed method to reanalyze a completed randomized clinical trial. The new analysis using our proposed score test achieves statistical significance, whilst reducing the issue of type I error inflation.

stat.ME

OrigamiPlot: An R Package and Shiny Web App Enhanced Visualizations for Multivariate Data

We introduce OrigamiPlot, an open-source R package and Shiny web application designed to enhance the visualization of multivariate data. This package implements the origami plot, a novel visualization technique proposed by Duan et al. in 2023, which improves upon traditional radar charts by ensuring that the area of the connected region is invariant to the ordering of attributes, addressing a key limitation of radar charts. The software facilitates multivariate decision-making by supporting comparisons across multiple objects and attributes, offering customizable features such as auxiliary axes and weighted attributes for enhanced clarity. Through the R package and user-friendly Shiny interface, researchers can efficiently create and customize plots without requiring extensive programming knowledge. Demonstrated using network meta-analysis as a real-world example, OrigamiPlot proves to be a versatile tool for visualizing multivariate data across various fields. This package opens new opportunities for simplifying decision-making processes with complex data.

cs.HC

Challenges and Possible Strategies to Address Them in Rare Disease Drug Development: A Statistical Perspective

Developing drugs for rare diseases presents unique challenges from a statistical perspective. These challenges may include slowly progressive diseases with unmet medical needs, poorly understood natural history, small population size, diversified phenotypes and geneotypes within a disorder, and lack of appropriate surrogate endpoints to measure clinical benefits. The Real-World Evidence (RWE) Scientific Working Group of the American Statistical Association Biopharmaceutical Section has assembled a research team to assess the landscape including challenges and possible strategies to address these challenges and the role of real-world data (RWD) and RWE in rare disease drug development. This paper first reviews the current regulations by regulatory agencies worldwide and then discusses in more details the challenges from a statistical perspective in the design, conduct, and analysis of rare disease clinical trials. After outlining an overall development pathway for rare disease drugs, corresponding strategies to address the aforementioned challenges are presented. Other considerations are also discussed for generating relevant evidence for regulatory decision-making on drugs for rare diseases. The accompanying paper discusses how RWD and RWE can be used to improve the efficiency of rare disease drug development.

stat.AP

Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence in Rare Disease Drug Development: A Statistical Perspective

Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) have been increasingly used in medical product development and regulatory decision-making, especially for rare diseases. After outlining the challenges and possible strategies to address the challenges in rare disease drug development (see the accompanying paper), the Real-World Evidence (RWE) Scientific Working Group of the American Statistical Association Biopharmaceutical Section reviews the roles of RWD and RWE in clinical trials for drugs treating rare diseases. This paper summarizes relevant guidance documents and frameworks by selected regulatory agencies and the current practice on the use of RWD and RWE in natural history studies and the design, conduct, and analysis of rare disease clinical trials. A targeted learning roadmap for rare disease trials is described, followed by case studies on the use of RWD and RWE to support a natural history study and marketing applications in various settings.

stat.AP

Study Duration Prediction for Clinical Trials with Time-to-Event Endpoints Using Mixture Distributions Accounting for Heterogeneous Population

In the era of precision medicine, more and more clinical trials are now driven or guided by biomarkers, which are patient characteristics objectively measured and evaluated as indicators of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes, or pharmacologic responses to therapeutic interventions. With the overarching objective to optimize and personalize disease management, biomarker-guided clinical trials increase the efficiency by appropriately utilizing prognostic or predictive biomarkers in the design. However, the efficiency gain is often not quantitatively compared to the traditional all-comers design, in which a faster enrollment rate is expected (e.g. due to no restriction to biomarker positive patients) potentially leading to a shorter duration. To accurately predict biomarker-guided trial duration, we propose a general framework using mixture distributions accounting for heterogeneous population. Extensive simulations are performed to evaluate the impact of heterogeneous population and the dynamics of biomarker characteristics and disease on the study duration. Several influential parameters including median survival time, enrollment rate, biomarker prevalence and effect size are identitied. Re-assessments of two publicly available trials are conducted to empirically validate the prediction accuracy and to demonstrate the practical utility. The R package \emph{detest} is developed to implement the proposed method and is publicly available on CRAN.

stat.ME

Causally-interpretable meta-analysis: clearly-defined causal effects and two case studies

Meta-analysis is commonly used to combine results from multiple clinical trials, but traditional meta-analysis methods do not refer explicitly to a population of individuals to whom the results apply and it is not clear how to use their results to assess a treatment's effect for a population of interest. We describe recently-introduced causally-interpretable meta-analysis methods and apply their treatment effect estimators to two individual-participant data sets. These estimators transport estimated treatment effects from studies in the meta-analysis to a specified target population using individuals' potentially effect-modifying covariates. We consider different regression and weighting methods within this approach and compare the results to traditional aggregated-data meta-analysis methods. In our applications, certain versions of the causally-interpretable methods performed somewhat better than the traditional methods, but the latter generally did well. The causally-interpretable methods offer the most promise when covariates modify treatment effects and our results suggest that traditional methods work well when there is little effect heterogeneity. The causally-interpretable approach gives meta-analysis an appealing theoretical framework by relating an estimator directly to a specific population and lays a solid foundation for future developments.

stat.ME

A Bayesian Selection Model for Correcting Outcome Reporting Bias With Application to a Meta-analysis on Heart Failure Interventions

Multivariate meta-analysis (MMA) is a powerful tool for jointly estimating multiple outcomes' treatment effects. However, the validity of results from MMA is potentially compromised by outcome reporting bias (ORB), or the tendency for studies to selectively report outcomes. Until recently, ORB has been understudied. Since ORB can lead to biased conclusions, it is crucial to correct the estimates of effect sizes and quantify their uncertainty in the presence of ORB. With this goal, we develop a Bayesian selection model to adjust for ORB in MMA. We further propose a measure for quantifying the impact of ORB on the results from MMA. We evaluate our approaches through a meta-evaluation of 748 bivariate meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Our model is motivated by and applied to a meta-analysis of interventions on hospital readmission and quality of life for heart failure patients. In our analysis, the relative risk (RR) of hospital readmission for the intervention group changes from a significant decrease (RR: 0.931, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.862-0.993) to a statistically nonsignificant effect (RR: 0.955, 95% CI: 0.876-1.051) after adjusting for ORB. This study demonstrates that failing to account for ORB can lead to different conclusions in a meta-analysis.

stat.AP

Odds Ratios are far from "portable": A call to use realistic models for effect variation in meta-analysis

Objective: Recently Doi et al. argued that risk ratios should be replaced with odds ratios in clinical research. We disagreed, and empirically documented the lack of portability of odds ratios, while Doi et al. defended their position. In this response we highlight important errors in their position. Study Design and Setting: We counter Doi et al.'s arguments by further examining the correlations of odds ratios, and risk ratios, with baseline risks in 20,198 meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Results: Doi et al.'s claim that odds ratios are portable is invalid because 1) their reasoning is circular: they assume a model under which the odds ratio is constant and show that under such a model the odds ratio is portable; 2) the method they advocate to convert odds ratios to risk ratios is biased; 3) their empirical example is readily-refuted by counter-examples of meta-analyses in which the risk ratio is portable but the odds ratio isn't; and 4) they fail to consider the causal determinants of meta-analytic inclusion criteria: Doi et al. mistakenly claim that variation in odds ratios with different baseline risks in meta-analyses is due to collider bias. Empirical comparison between the correlations of odds ratios, and risk ratios, with baseline risks show that the portability of odds ratios and risk ratios varies across settings. Conclusion: The suggestion to replace risk ratios with odds ratios is based on circular reasoning and a confusion of mathematical and empirical results. It is especially misleading for meta-analyses and clinical guidance. Neither the odds ratio nor the risk ratio is universally portable. To address this lack of portability, we reinforce our suggestion to report variation in effect measures conditioning on modifying factors such as baseline risk; understanding such variation is essential to patient-centered practice.

stat.AP

Testing for publication bias in meta-analysis under Copas selection model

In meta-analyses, publication bias is a well-known, important and challenging issue because the validity of the results from a meta-analysis is threatened if the sample of studies retrieved for review is biased. One popular method to deal with publication bias is the Copas selection model, which provides a flexible sensitivity analysis for correcting the estimates with considerable insight into the data suppression mechanism. However, rigorous testing procedures under the Copas selection model to detect bias are lacking. To fill this gap, we develop a score-based test for detecting publication bias under the Copas selection model. We reveal that the behavior of the standard score test statistic is irregular because the parameters of the Copas selection model disappear under the null hypothesis, leading to an identifiability problem. We propose a novel test statistic and derive its limiting distribution. A bootstrap procedure is provided to obtain the p-value of the test for practical applications. We conduct extensive Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the performance of the proposed test and apply the method to several existing meta-analyses.

stat.ME

Optimally estimating the sample standard deviation from the five-number summary

When reporting the results of clinical studies, some researchers may choose the five-number summary (including the sample median, the first and third quartiles, and the minimum and maximum values) rather than the sample mean and standard deviation, particularly for skewed data. For these studies, when included in a meta-analysis, it is often desired to convert the five-number summary back to the sample mean and standard deviation. For this purpose, several methods have been proposed in the recent literature and they are increasingly used nowadays. In this paper, we propose to further advance the literature by developing a smoothly weighted estimator for the sample standard deviation that fully utilizes the sample size information. For ease of implementation, we also derive an approximation formula for the optimal weight, as well as a shortcut formula for the sample standard deviation. Numerical results show that our new estimator provides a more accurate estimate for normal data and also performs favorably for non-normal data. Together with the optimal sample mean estimator in Luo et al., our new methods have dramatically improved the existing methods for data transformation, and they are capable to serve as "rules of thumb" in meta-analysis for studies reported with the five-number summary. Finally for practical use, an Excel spreadsheet and an online calculator are also provided for implementing our optimal estimators.

stat.ME

On equivalence of the LKJ distribution and the restricted Wishart distribution

In this paper, we want to show the Restricted Wishart distribution is equivalent to the LKJ distribution, which is one way to specify a uniform distribution from the space of positive definite correlation matrices. Based on this theorem, we propose a new method to generate random correlation matrices from the LKJ distribution. This new method is faster than the original onion method for generating random matrices, especially in the low dimension ($T<120$) situation.

stat.CO

Testing small study effects in multivariate meta-analysis

Small study effects occur when smaller studies show different, often larger, treatment effects than large ones, which may threaten the validity of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The most well-known reasons for small study effects include publication bias, outcome reporting bias and clinical heterogeneity. Methods to account for small study effects in univariate meta-analysis have been extensively studied. However, detecting small study effects in a multivariate meta-analysis setting remains an untouched research area. One of the complications is that different types of selection processes can be involved in the reporting of multivariate outcomes. For example, some studies may be completely unpublished while others may selectively report multiple outcomes. In this paper, we propose a score test as an overall test of small study effects in multivariate meta-analysis. Two detailed case studies are given to demonstrate the advantage of the proposed test over various naive applications of univariate tests in practice. Through simulation studies, the proposed test is found to retain nominal Type I error with considerable power in moderate sample size settings. Finally, we also evaluate the concordance between the proposed test with the naive application of univariate tests by evaluating 44 systematic reviews with multiple outcomes from the Cochrane Database.

stat.ME

IsoDOT Detects Differential RNA-isoform Expression/Usage with respect to a Categorical or Continuous Covariate with High Sensitivity and Specificity

We have developed a statistical method named IsoDOT to assess differential isoform expression (DIE) and differential isoform usage (DIU) using RNA-seq data. Here isoform usage refers to relative isoform expression given the total expression of the corresponding gene. IsoDOT performs two tasks that cannot be accomplished by existing methods: to test DIE/DIU with respect to a continuous covariate, and to test DIE/DIU for one case versus one control. The latter task is not an uncommon situation in practice, e.g., comparing paternal and maternal allele of one individual or comparing tumor and normal sample of one cancer patient. Simulation studies demonstrate the high sensitivity and specificity of IsoDOT. We apply IsoDOT to study the effects of haloperidol treatment on mouse transcriptome and identify a group of genes whose isoform usages respond to haloperidol treatment.

stat.AP