Quantifying the bias in the estimated treatment effect in randomized trials having interim analyses and a rule for early stopping for futility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we consider the potential bias in the estimated treatment effect obtained from clinical trials, the protocols of which include the possibility of interim analyses and an early termination of the study for reasons of futility. In particular, by considering the conditional power at an interim analysis, we derive analytic expressions for various parameters of interest: (i) the underestimation or overestimation of the treatment effect in studies that stop for futility; (ii) the impact of the interim analyses on the estimation of treatment effect in studies that are completed, i.e. that do not stop for futility; (iii) the overall estimation bias in the estimated treatment effect in a single study with such a stopping rule; and (iv) the probability of stopping at an interim analysis. We evaluate these general expressions numerically for typical trial scenarios. Results show that the parameters of interest depend on a number of factors, including the true underlying treatment effect, the difference that the trial is designed to detect, the study power, the number of planned interim analyses and what assumption is made about future data to be observed after an interim analysis. Because the probability of stopping early is small for many practical situations, the overall bias is often small, but a more serious issue is the potential for substantial underestimation of the treatment effect in studies that actually stop for futility. We also consider these ideas using data from an illustrative trial that did stop for futility at an interim analysis. Copyright © 2017 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 | 0.248 | 0.582 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".