SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Kenneth M. Lee

Publications and source records attributed to Kenneth M. Lee.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Saturation in G: simple & robust causal inference in cluster randomized trials with informative cluster sizes

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) can exhibit informative cluster sizes (ICS) where cluster size is associated with outcomes and/or treatment effects. Under ICS, the individual and cluster-average treatment effects (iATE, cATE) can diverge, and the conventional linear mixed-effects model (LMM) and generalized estimating equation (GEE) with an exchangeable working correlation can produce data-dependent weighted contrasts that are not consistent for either estimand. In these settings with ICS, we propose easy to implement "cluster-size saturated models with g-computation" (CS-g), which employ a simple two-step adjustment to standard practice: (1.) augment the appropriately weighted working LMM or GEE with a saturated continuous cluster-size main effect and treatment x cluster-size interaction, and (2.) apply g-computation to target an interpretable marginal estimand. We prove that the appropriately weighted cluster-size saturated LMM with g-computation and more general cluster-size saturated GEE with g-computation can consistently target the iATE and cATE, among a broad class of interpretable estimands, while allowing for ICS. Crucially, this consistency holds under arbitrary misspecification of other model components, including the functional form of the saturated cluster-size terms. Furthermore, we demonstrate exact finite-sample equivalence between these consistent CS-g estimators and their model-robust standardization counterparts. Across simulations with continuous and binary outcomes, the proposed CS-g estimators were unbiased, more efficient than other consistent estimators, and returned greater power to detect ICS. A re-analysis of the PPACT P-CRT further illustrates the approach. Altogether, CS-g offers a simple, robust, and efficient route to target interpretable marginal effects in P-CRTs with ICS.

stat.ME

Fixed-Effects Models for Causal Inference in Longitudinal Cluster Randomized and Quasi-Experimental Trials

This article investigates the model-robustness of fixed-effects models for analyzing a broad class of longitudinal cluster trials (CTs) such as stepped-wedge, parallel-with-baseline and crossover designs, encompassing both randomized (CRTs) and quasi-experimental (CQTs) designs. We clarify a longstanding misconception in biostatistics, demonstrating that fixed-effects models, traditionally perceived as targeting only finite-sample conditional estimands, can effectively target super-population marginal estimands through an M-estimation framework. We comprehensively prove that linear and log-link fixed-effects models with correctly specified treatment effect structures can broadly yield consistent and asymptotically normal estimators for nonparametrically defined treatment effect estimands in longitudinal CRTs, even under arbitrary misspecification of other model components. We identify that the constant treatment effect estimator generally targets the period-average treatment effect for the overlap population (P-ATO); accordingly, some CRT designs don't even require correct specification of the treatment effect structure for model-robustness. We further characterize conditions where fixed-effects models can maintain consistency by adjusting for both cluster-level and individual-level time-invariant confounding in longitudinal CQTs. Altogether, supported by simulation and a case study re-analysis, we establish fixed-effects models as a robust and potentially preferable alternative to mixed-effects models for longitudinal CT analysis.

stat.ME

Who's Winning? Clarifying Estimands Based on Win Statistics in Cluster Randomized Trials

Treatment effect estimands based on win statistics, including the win ratio, win odds, and win difference are increasingly popular targets for summarizing endpoints in clinical trials. Such win estimands offer an intuitive approach for prioritizing outcomes by clinical importance. The implementation and interpretation of win estimands is complicated in cluster randomized trials (CRTs), where researchers can target fundamentally different estimands on the individual-level or cluster-level. We numerically demonstrate that individual-pair and cluster-pair win estimands can substantially differ when cluster size is informative: where outcomes and/or treatment effects depend on cluster size. With such informative cluster sizes, individual-pair and cluster-pair win estimands can even yield opposite conclusions regarding treatment benefit. We describe consistent estimators for individual-pair and cluster-pair win estimands and propose a leave-one-cluster-out jackknife variance estimator for inference. Despite being consistent, our simulations highlight that some caution is needed when implementing individual-pair win estimators due to finite-sample bias. In contrast, cluster-pair win estimators are unbiased for their respective targets. Altogether, careful specification of the target estimand is essential when applying win estimators in CRTs. Failure to clearly define whether individual-pair or cluster-pair win estimands are of primary interest may result in answering a dramatically different question than intended.

stat.ME

What is estimated in cluster randomized crossover trials with informative sizes? -- A survey of estimands and common estimators

In the analysis of cluster randomized trials (CRTs), previous work has defined two meaningful estimands: the individual-average treatment effect (iATE) and cluster-average treatment effect (cATE) estimand, to address individual and cluster-level hypotheses. In multi-period CRT designs, such as the cluster randomized crossover (CRXO) trial, additional weighted average treatment effect estimands help fully reflect the longitudinal nature of these trial designs, namely the cluster-period-average treatment effect (cpATE) and period-average treatment effect (pATE). We define different forms of informative sizes, where the treatment effects vary according to cluster, period, and/or cluster-period sizes, which subsequently cause these estimands to differ in magnitude. Under such conditions, we demonstrate which of the unweighted, inverse cluster-period size weighted, inverse cluster size weighted, and inverse period size weighted: (i.) independence estimating equation, (ii.) fixed effects model, (iii.) exchangeable mixed effects model, and (iv.) nested exchangeable mixed effects model treatment effect estimators are consistent for the aforementioned estimands in 2-period cross-sectional CRXO designs with continuous outcomes. We report a simulation study and conclude with a reanalysis of a CRXO trial testing different treatments on hospital length of stay among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Notably, with informative sizes, the unweighted and weighted nested exchangeable mixed effects model estimators are not consistent for any meaningful estimand and can yield biased results. In contrast, the unweighted and weighted independence estimating equation, and under specific scenarios, the fixed effects model and exchangeable mixed effects model, can yield consistent and empirically unbiased estimators for meaningful estimands in 2-period CRXO trials.

stat.ME

Analysis of Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trials when treatment effects vary by exposure time or calendar time

Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) are traditionally analyzed with models that assume an immediate and sustained treatment effect. Previous work has shown that making such an assumption in the analysis of SW-CRTs when the true underlying treatment effect varies by exposure time can produce severely misleading estimates. Alternatively, the true underlying treatment effect might vary by calendar time. Comparatively less work has examined treatment effect structure misspecification in this setting. Here, we evaluate the behavior of the mixed effects model-based immediate treatment effect, exposure time-averaged treatment effect, and calendar time-averaged treatment effect estimators in different scenarios where they are misspecified for the true underlying treatment effect structure. We show that the immediate treatment effect estimator is relatively robust to bias when estimating a true underlying calendar time-averaged treatment effect estimand. However, when there is a true underlying calendar (exposure) time-varying treatment effect, misspecifying an analysis with an exposure (calendar) time-averaged treatment effect estimator can yield severely misleading estimates and even converge to a value of the opposite sign of the true calendar (exposure) time-averaged treatment effect estimand. In this article, we highlight the two different time scales on which treatment effects can vary in SW-CRTs and clarify potential vulnerabilities that may arise when considering different types of time-varying treatment effects in a SW design. Accordingly, we emphasize the need for researchers to carefully consider whether the treatment effect may vary as a function of exposure time and/or calendar time in the analysis of SW-CRTs.

stat.ME