-
On the two-step hybrid design for augmenting randomized trials using real-world data
Authors:
Jiapeng Xu,
Ruben P. A. van Eijk,
Alicia Ellis,
Tianyu Pan,
Lorene M. Nelson,
Kit C. B. Roes,
Marc van Dijk,
Maria Sarno,
Leonard H. van den Berg,
Lu Tian,
Ying Lu
Abstract:
Hybrid clinical trials, that borrow real-world data (RWD), are gaining interest, especially for rare diseases. They assume RWD and randomized control arm be exchangeable, but violations can bias results, inflate type I error, or reduce power. A two-step hybrid design first tests exchangeability, reducing inappropriate borrowing but potentially inflating type I error (Yuan et al., 2019). We propose…
▽ More
Hybrid clinical trials, that borrow real-world data (RWD), are gaining interest, especially for rare diseases. They assume RWD and randomized control arm be exchangeable, but violations can bias results, inflate type I error, or reduce power. A two-step hybrid design first tests exchangeability, reducing inappropriate borrowing but potentially inflating type I error (Yuan et al., 2019). We propose four methods to better control type I error. Approach 1 estimates the variance of test statistics, rejecting the null hypothesis based on large sample normal approximation. Approach 2 uses a numerical approach for exact critical value determination. Approach 3 splits type I error rates by equivalence test outcome. Approach 4 adjusts the critical value only when equivalence is established. Simulation studies using a hypothetical ALS scenario, evaluate type I error and power under various conditions, compared to the Bayesian power prior approach (Ibrahim et al., 2015). Our methods and the Bayesian power prior control type I error, whereas Yuan et al. (2019) increases it under exchangeability. If exchangeability doesn't hold, all methods fail to control type I error. Our methods show type I error inflation of 6%-8%, compared to 10% for Yuan et al. (2019) and 16% for the Bayesian power prior.
△ Less
Submitted 21 January, 2025;
originally announced January 2025.
-
Fair coins tend to land on the same side they started: Evidence from 350,757 flips
Authors:
František Bartoš,
Alexandra Sarafoglou,
Henrik R. Godmann,
Amir Sahrani,
David Klein Leunk,
Pierre Y. Gui,
David Voss,
Kaleem Ullah,
Malte J. Zoubek,
Franziska Nippold,
Frederik Aust,
Felipe F. Vieira,
Chris-Gabriel Islam,
Anton J. Zoubek,
Sara Shabani,
Jonas Petter,
Ingeborg B. Roos,
Adam Finnemann,
Aaron B. Lob,
Madlen F. Hoffstadt,
Jason Nak,
Jill de Ron,
Koen Derks,
Karoline Huth,
Sjoerd Terpstra
, et al. (25 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Many people have flipped coins but few have stopped to ponder the statistical and physical intricacies of the process. We collected $350{,}757$ coin flips to test the counterintuitive prediction from a physics model of human coin tossing developed by Diaconis, Holmes, and Montgomery (DHM; 2007). The model asserts that when people flip an ordinary coin, it tends to land on the same side it started…
▽ More
Many people have flipped coins but few have stopped to ponder the statistical and physical intricacies of the process. We collected $350{,}757$ coin flips to test the counterintuitive prediction from a physics model of human coin tossing developed by Diaconis, Holmes, and Montgomery (DHM; 2007). The model asserts that when people flip an ordinary coin, it tends to land on the same side it started -- DHM estimated the probability of a same-side outcome to be about 51\%. Our data lend strong support to this precise prediction: the coins landed on the same side more often than not, $\text{Pr}(\text{same side}) = 0.508$, 95\% credible interval (CI) [$0.506$, $0.509$], $\text{BF}_{\text{same-side bias}} = 2359$. Furthermore, the data revealed considerable between-people variation in the degree of this same-side bias. Our data also confirmed the generic prediction that when people flip an ordinary coin -- with the initial side-up randomly determined -- it is equally likely to land heads or tails: $\text{Pr}(\text{heads}) = 0.500$, 95\% CI [$0.498$, $0.502$], $\text{BF}_{\text{heads-tails bias}} = 0.182$. Furthermore, this lack of heads-tails bias does not appear to vary across coins. Additional analyses revealed that the within-people same-side bias decreased as more coins were flipped, an effect that is consistent with the possibility that practice makes people flip coins in a less wobbly fashion. Our data therefore provide strong evidence that when some (but not all) people flip a fair coin, it tends to land on the same side it started.
△ Less
Submitted 17 April, 2025; v1 submitted 6 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
The Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) study design in oncology: Experience and methodological reflections
Authors:
Rob Kessels,
Anne M. May,
Miriam Koopman,
Kit C. B. Roes
Abstract:
A Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) study design is a trial design that uses the infrastructure of an observational cohort study to initiate a randomized trial. Upon cohort enrollment, cohort participants provided consent for being randomized in future studies without being informed. Once a new treatment is available, eligible cohort participants are randomly assigned to this new treatment or standard…
▽ More
A Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) study design is a trial design that uses the infrastructure of an observational cohort study to initiate a randomized trial. Upon cohort enrollment, cohort participants provided consent for being randomized in future studies without being informed. Once a new treatment is available, eligible cohort participants are randomly assigned to this new treatment or standard of care. Patients randomized to the treatment arm are offered this new treatment, which they can refuse. Patients who refuse will receive standard of care instead. Patients randomized to the standard of care arm, receive no information about the trial and continue receiving standard of care as part the cohort study. Standard cohort measures are used for outcome comparisons. The TwiCs study design aims to overcome some issues encountered in standard Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). An example of an issue in standard RCTs is the slow patient accrual, which a TwiCs study aims to improve by selecting patients using a cohort and only offering the intervention to patients in the active arm. In oncology, the TwiCs study design has gained increasing interest during the last decade. Despite its potential advantages over RCTs, the TwiCs study design is concerned with several methodological challenges that need careful consideration when planning a TwiCs study. In this article, we focus on these methodological challenges and reflect on them using experiences from TwiCs studies initiated in oncology. Important methodological challenges that are discussed are the timing of randomization, the issue of non-compliance (refusal) after randomization in the intervention arm, and the definition of the intention-to-treat effect in a TwiCs study and how this effect is related to its counterpart in standard RCTs.
△ Less
Submitted 18 November, 2022;
originally announced November 2022.
-
A three domain covariance framework for EEG/MEG data
Authors:
Beata Roś,
Fetsje Bijma,
Mathisca de Gunst,
Jan de Munck
Abstract:
In this paper we introduce a covariance framework for the analysis of EEG and MEG data that takes into account observed temporal stationarity on small time scales and trial-to-trial variations. We formulate a model for the covariance matrix, which is a Kronecker product of three components that correspond to space, time and epochs/trials, and consider maximum likelihood estimation of the unknown p…
▽ More
In this paper we introduce a covariance framework for the analysis of EEG and MEG data that takes into account observed temporal stationarity on small time scales and trial-to-trial variations. We formulate a model for the covariance matrix, which is a Kronecker product of three components that correspond to space, time and epochs/trials, and consider maximum likelihood estimation of the unknown parameter values. An iterative algorithm that finds approximations of the maximum likelihood estimates is proposed. We perform a simulation study to assess the performance of the estimator and investigate the influence of different assumptions about the covariance factors on the estimated covariance matrix and on its components. Apart from that, we illustrate our method on real EEG and MEG data sets.
The proposed covariance model is applicable in a variety of cases where spontaneous EEG or MEG acts as source of noise and realistic noise covariance estimates are needed for accurate dipole localization, such as in evoked activity studies, or where the properties of spontaneous EEG or MEG are themselves the topic of interest, such as in combined EEG/fMRI experiments in which the correlation between EEG and fMRI signals is investigated.
△ Less
Submitted 9 October, 2014;
originally announced October 2014.
