Using mixed treatment comparisons and meta‐regression to perform indirect comparisons to estimate the efficacy of biologic treatments in rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixed treatment comparison (MTC) is a generalization of meta-analysis. Instead of the same treatment for a disease being tested in a number of studies, a number of different interventions are considered. Meta-regression is also a generalization of meta-analysis where an attempt is made to explain the heterogeneity between the treatment effects in the studies by regressing on study-level covariables. Our focus is where there are several different treatments considered in a number of randomized controlled trials in a specific disease, the same treatment can be applied in several arms within a study, and where differences in efficacy can be explained by differences in the study settings. We develop methods for simultaneously comparing several treatments and adjusting for study-level covariables by combining ideas from MTC and meta-regression. We use a case study from rheumatoid arthritis. We identified relevant trials of biologic verses standard therapy or placebo and extracted the doses, comparators and patient baseline characteristics. Efficacy is measured using the log odds ratio of achieving six-month ACR50 responder status. A random-effects meta-regression model is fitted which adjusts the log odds ratio for study-level prognostic factors. A different random-effect distribution on the log odds ratios is allowed for each different treatment. The odds ratio is found as a function of the prognostic factors for each treatment. The apparent differences in the randomized trials between tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF- alpha) antagonists are explained by differences in prognostic factors and the analysis suggests that these drugs as a class are not different from each other.
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 | 0.177 | 0.270 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".