arXiv subjects

Patrick B. Ryan

Publications and source records attributed to Patrick B. Ryan.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

PDA in Action: Ten Principles for High-Quality Multi-Site Clinical Evidence Generation

Background: Distributed Research Networks (DRNs) offer significant opportunities for collaborative multi-site research and have significantly advanced healthcare research based on clinical observational data. However, generating high-quality real-world evidence using fit-for-use data from multi-site studies faces important challenges, including biases associated with various types of heterogeneity within and across sites and data sharing difficulties. Over the last ten years, Privacy-Preserving Distributed Algorithms (PDA) have been developed and utilized in numerous national and international real-world studies spanning diverse domains, from comparative effectiveness research, target trial emulation, to healthcare delivery, policy evaluation, and system performance assessment. Despite these advances, there remains a lack of comprehensive and clear guiding principles for generating high-quality real-world evidence through collaborative studies leveraging the methods under PDA. Objective: The paper aims to establish ten principles of best practice for conducting high-quality multi-site studies using PDA. These principles cover all phases of research, including study preparation, protocol development, analysis, and final reporting. Discussion: The ten principles for conducting a PDA study outline a principled, efficient, and transparent framework for employing distributed learning algorithms within DRNs to generate reliable and reproducible real-world evidence.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

An Open-Source Knowledge Graph Ecosystem for the Life Sciences

Translational research requires data at multiple scales of biological organization. Advancements in sequencing and multi-omics technologies have increased the availability of these data, but researchers face significant integration challenges. Knowledge graphs (KGs) are used to model complex phenomena, and methods exist to construct them automatically. However, tackling complex biomedical integration problems requires flexibility in the way knowledge is modeled. Moreover, existing KG construction methods provide robust tooling at the cost of fixed or limited choices among knowledge representation models. PheKnowLator (Phenotype Knowledge Translator) is a semantic ecosystem for automating the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) construction of ontologically grounded KGs with fully customizable knowledge representation. The ecosystem includes KG construction resources (e.g., data preparation APIs), analysis tools (e.g., SPARQL endpoints and abstraction algorithms), and benchmarks (e.g., prebuilt KGs and embeddings). We evaluated the ecosystem by systematically comparing it to existing open-source KG construction methods and by analyzing its computational performance when used to construct 12 large-scale KGs. With flexible knowledge representation, PheKnowLator enables fully customizable KGs without compromising performance or usability.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2023

Quantitative bias analysis for outcome phenotype error correction in comparative effect estimation: an empirical and synthetic evaluation

Outcome phenotype measurement error is rarely corrected in comparative effect estimation studies in observational pharmacoepidemiology. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) is a misclassification correction method that algebraically adjusts person counts in exposure-outcome contingency tables to reflect the magnitude of misclassification. The extent QBA minimizes bias is unclear because few systematic evaluations have been reported. We empirically evaluated QBA impact on odds ratios (OR) in several comparative effect estimation scenarios. We estimated non-differential and differential phenotype errors with internal validation studies using a probabilistic reference. Further, we synthesized an analytic space defined by outcome incidence, uncorrected ORs, and phenotype errors to identify which combinations produce invalid results indicative of input errors. We evaluated impact with relative bias [(OR-ORQBA)]/OR*100%]. Results were considered invalid if any contingency table cell was corrected to a negative number. Empirical bias correction was greatest in lower incidence scenarios where uncorrected ORs were larger. Similarly, synthetic bias correction was greater in lower incidence settings with larger uncorrected estimates. The invalid proportion of synthetic scenarios increased as uncorrected estimates increased. Results were invalid in common, low incidence scenarios indicating problematic inputs. This demonstrates the importance of accurately and precisely estimating phenotype errors before implementing QBA in comparative effect estimation studies.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2023

Bayesian Safety Surveillance with Adaptive Bias Correction

Post-market safety surveillance is an integral part of mass vaccination programs. Typically relying on sequential analysis of real-world health data as they accrue, safety surveillance is challenged by the difficulty of sequential multiple testing and by biases induced by residual confounding. The current standard approach based on the maximized sequential probability ratio test (MaxSPRT) fails to satisfactorily address these practical challenges and it remains a rigid framework that requires pre-specification of the surveillance schedule. We develop an alternative Bayesian surveillance procedure that addresses both challenges using a more flexible framework. We adopt a joint statistical modeling approach to sequentially estimate the effect of vaccine exposure on the adverse event of interest and correct for estimation bias by simultaneously analyzing a large set of negative control outcomes through a Bayesian hierarchical model. We then compute a posterior probability of the alternative hypothesis via Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and use it for sequential detection of safety signals. Through an empirical evaluation using six US observational healthcare databases covering more than 360 million patients, we benchmark the proposed procedure against MaxSPRT on testing errors and estimation accuracy, under two epidemiological designs, the historical comparator and the self-controlled case series. We demonstrate that our procedure substantially reduces Type 1 error rates, maintains high statistical power, delivers fast signal detection, and provides considerably more accurate estimation. As an effort to promote open science, we present all empirical results in an R ShinyApp and provide full implementation of our method in the R package EvidenceSynthesis.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2022

A standardized framework for risk-based assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity in observational healthcare databases

The Predictive Approaches to Treatment Effect Heterogeneity statement focused on baseline risk as a robust predictor of treatment effect and provided guidance on risk-based assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity in the RCT setting. The aim of this study was to extend this approach to the observational setting using a standardized scalable framework. The proposed framework consists of five steps: 1) definition of the research aim, i.e., the population, the treatment, the comparator and the outcome(s) of interest; 2) identification of relevant databases; 3) development of a prediction model for the outcome(s) of interest; 4) estimation of relative and absolute treatment effect within strata of predicted risk, after adjusting for observed confounding; 5) presentation of the results. We demonstrate our framework by evaluating heterogeneity of the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors versus beta blockers on three efficacy and six safety outcomes across three observational databases. The proposed framework can supplement any comparative effectiveness study. We provide a publicly available R software package for applying this framework to any database mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. In our demonstration, patients at low risk of acute myocardial infarction received negligible absolute benefits for all three efficacy outcomes, though they were more pronounced in the highest risk quarter, especially for hospitalization with heart failure. However, failing diagnostics showed evidence of residual imbalances even after adjustment for observed confounding. Our framework allows for the evaluation of differential treatment effects across risk strata, which offers the opportunity to consider the benefit-harm trade-off between alternative treatments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2020

Logistic regression models for patient-level prediction based on massive observational data: Do we need all data?

Objective: Provide guidance on sample size considerations for developing predictive models by empirically establishing the adequate sample size, which balances the competing objectives of improving model performance and reducing model complexity as well as computational requirements. Materials and Methods: We empirically assess the effect of sample size on prediction performance and model complexity by generating learning curves for 81 prediction problems (23 outcomes predicted in a depression cohort, 58 outcomes predicted in a hypertension cohort) in three large observational health databases, requiring training of 17,248 prediction models. The adequate sample size was defined as the sample size for which the performance of a model equalled the maximum model performance minus a small threshold value. Results: The adequate sample size achieves a median reduction of the number of observations of 9.5%, 37.3%, 58.5%, and 78.5% for the thresholds of 0.001, 0.005, 0.01, and 0.02, respectively. The median reduction of the number of predictors in the models was 8.6%, 32.2%, 48.2%, and 68.3% for the thresholds of 0.001, 0.005, 0.01, and 0.02, respectively. Discussion: Based on our results a conservative, yet significant, reduction in sample size and model complexity can be estimated for future prediction work. Though, if a researcher is willing to generate a learning curve a much larger reduction of the model complexity may be possible as suggested by a large outcome-dependent variability. Conclusion: Our results suggest that in most cases only a fraction of the available data was sufficient to produce a model close to the performance of one developed on the full data set, but with a substantially reduced model complexity.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2018

A systematic approach to improving the reliability and scale of evidence from health care data

Concerns over reproducibility in science extend to research using existing healthcare data; many observational studies investigating the same topic produce conflicting results, even when using the same data. To address this problem, we propose a paradigm shift. The current paradigm centers on generating one estimate at a time using a unique study design with unknown reliability and publishing (or not) one estimate at a time. The new paradigm advocates for high-throughput observational studies using consistent and standardized methods, allowing evaluation, calibration, and unbiased dissemination to generate a more reliable and complete evidence base. We demonstrate this new paradigm by comparing all depression treatments for a set of outcomes, producing 17,718 hazard ratios, each using methodology on par with state-of-the-art studies. We furthermore include control hypotheses to evaluate and calibrate our evidence generation process. Results show good transitivity and consistency between databases, and agree with four out of the five findings from clinical trials. The distribution of effect size estimates reported in literature reveals an absence of small or null effects, with a sharp cutoff at p = 0.05. No such phenomena were observed in our results, suggesting more complete and more reliable evidence.

stat.AP↗