ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2024
Semi-supervised mixture multi-source exchangeability model for leveraging real-world data in clinical trials.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection.2025
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The traditional trial paradigm is often criticized as being slow, inefficient, and costly. Statistical approaches that leverage external trial data have emerged to make trials more efficient by augmenting the sample size. However, these approaches assume that external data are from previously conducted trials, leaving a rich source of untapped real-world data (RWD) that cannot yet be effectively leveraged. We propose a semi-supervised mixture (SS-MIX) multisource exchangeability model (MEM); a flexible, two-step Bayesian approach for incorporating RWD into randomized controlled trial analyses. The first step is a SS-MIX model on a modified propensity score and the second step is a MEM. The first step targets a representative subgroup of individuals from the trial population and the second step avoids borrowing when there are substantial differences in outcomes among the trial sample and the representative observational sample. When comparing the proposed approach to competing borrowing approaches in a simulation study, we find that our approach borrows efficiently when the trial and RWD are consistent, while mitigating bias when the trial and external data differ on either measured or unmeasured covariates. We illustrate the proposed approach with an application to a randomized controlled trial investigating intravenous hyperimmune immunoglobulin in hospitalized patients with influenza, while leveraging data from an external observational study to supplement a subgroup analysis by influenza subtype.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.