Leveraging a Bayesian Approach in a Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cara T Lwin,1 Christianne L Roumie,2– 4 Robert Alan Greevy Jr,1,2,5 Cole Beck,1,2 Kathryn Diane Snyder,3 Amber J Hackstadt1,2,5 1Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA; 2Geriatric Research Education Clinical Center (GRECC) and the VETWISE-LHS Center of Innovation, Veteran Administration Tennessee Valley VA Health Care System, Nashville, TN, USA; 3Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA; 4Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA; 5Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USACorrespondence: Amber J Hackstadt, Vanderbilt School of Medicine, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 1100, Nashville, TN, 37203-1741, USA, Email amber.hackstadt@vumc.orgPurpose: We applied a Bayesian approach to further investigate the association of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) with the composite outcome of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event and Heart Failure hospitalization (MACE+HF) and its individual components leveraging the ability of a Bayesian approach to incorporate prior clinical information and to make probability statements about the parameters.Methods: We use a Bayesian time-to-event model, where the covariates are directly modeled in the hazard function. Following propensity score matching, we fit three Bayesian models; one with a relatively flat, normal prior on the SGLT2i coefficient (Uninformative) and 2 with informative priors from a meta-analysis (based on a cohort with no history of cardiovascular disease [No CVD] and cohorts with a history of CVD [CVD]). We estimate the posterior distribution for the hazard ratio (HR) using a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo algorithm. It allows us to estimate the probability of a meaningful protective association (HR < 0.90) in addition to point and interval estimates.Results: The posterior means and 95% credible intervals for the HR suggested a protective association for SGLT2i versus dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) for the MACE+HF outcome: No CVD: 0.82 (0.68, 0.96), CVD: 0.82 (0.71, 0.94), and Uninformative: 0.79 (0.65, 0.94). The probability of a meaningful protective association for the No CVD, CVD, and Uninformative priors were 88%, 92%, and 93%, respectively. The probability of a meaningful protective association for the HF hospitalization, CVD hospitalization and CVD death components of MACE+HF were 95%, 67%, and 93%, respectively.Conclusion: The Bayesian analysis allowed for the incorporation of prior information via an informative prior and further investigation of the association between SGLT2 and the components of the MACE+HF composite outcome. It allowed for the calculation of an easily interpretable summary measure, the probability of a meaningful protective association.Keywords: time-to-event analysis, bayesian inference, hamiltonian monte carlo, propensity score methods, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus
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 | 0.194 | 0.309 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".