A flexible mixed‐effect negative binomial regression model for detecting unusual increases in MRI lesion counts in individual multiple sclerosis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop a new modeling approach to enhance a recently proposed method to detect increases of contrast-enhancing lesions (CELs) on repeated magnetic resonance imaging, which have been used as an indicator for potential adverse events in multiple sclerosis clinical trials. The method signals patients with unusual increases in CEL activity by estimating the probability of observing CEL counts as large as those observed on a patient's recent scans conditional on the patient's CEL counts on previous scans. This conditional probability index (CPI), computed based on a mixed-effect negative binomial regression model, can vary substantially depending on the choice of distribution for the patient-specific random effects. Therefore, we relax this parametric assumption to model the random effects with an infinite mixture of beta distributions, using the Dirichlet process, which effectively allows any form of distribution. To our knowledge, no previous literature considers a mixed-effect regression for longitudinal count variables where the random effect is modeled with a Dirichlet process mixture. As our inference is in the Bayesian framework, we adopt a meta-analytic approach to develop an informative prior based on previous clinical trials. This is particularly helpful at the early stages of trials when less data are available. Our enhanced method is illustrated with CEL data from 10 previous multiple sclerosis clinical trials. Our simulation study shows that our procedure estimates the CPI more accurately than parametric alternatives when the patient-specific random effect distribution is misspecified and that an informative prior improves the accuracy of the CPI estimates.
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 | 0.027 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".