Statistical approaches to group sequential monitoring of postmarket safety surveillance data: current state of the art for use in the Mini‐Sentinel pilot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose This manuscript describes the current statistical methodology available for active postmarket surveillance of pre‐specified safety outcomes using a prospective incident user concurrent control cohort design with existing electronic healthcare data. Methods Motivation of the active postmarket surveillance setting is provided using the Food and Drug Administration's Mini‐Sentinel Pilot as an example. Four sequential monitoring statistical methods are presented including the Lan–Demets error spending approach, a matched likelihood ratio test statistic approach with the binomial MaxSPRT as a special case, the conditional sequential sampling procedure with stratification, and a generalized estimating equation regression approach using permutation. Information on the assumptions, limitations, and advantages of each approach is provided, including how each method defines sequential monitoring boundaries, what test statistic is used, and how robust it is to settings of rare events or frequent testing. Results A hypothetical example of how the approaches could be applied to data comparing a medical product of interest, drug A, to a concurrent control drug, drug B, is presented including providing the type of information one would have available for monitoring such drugs. Summary We have described the current state of methodology for postmarket surveillance of pre‐specified safety outcomes. We describe the limitations and advantages of the approaches while acknowledging areas for future development. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.207 | 0.385 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".