Increasing the efficiency of randomized trial estimates via linear adjustment for a prognostic score

December 17, 2020 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› The International Journal of Biostatistics

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Alejandro Schuler, David Walsh, Diana Hall, Jon Walsh, Charles Fisher arXiv ID 2012.09935 Category stat.ML: Machine Learning (Stat) Cross-listed cs.LG, stat.ME Citations 57 Venue The International Journal of Biostatistics Last Checked 5 months ago
Abstract
Estimating causal effects from randomized experiments is central to clinical research. Reducing the statistical uncertainty in these analyses is an important objective for statisticians. Registries, prior trials, and health records constitute a growing compendium of historical data on patients under standard-of-care that may be exploitable to this end. However, most methods for historical borrowing achieve reductions in variance by sacrificing strict type-I error rate control. Here, we propose a use of historical data that exploits linear covariate adjustment to improve the efficiency of trial analyses without incurring bias. Specifically, we train a prognostic model on the historical data, then estimate the treatment effect using a linear regression while adjusting for the trial subjects' predicted outcomes (their prognostic scores). We prove that, under certain conditions, this prognostic covariate adjustment procedure attains the minimum variance possible among a large class of estimators. When those conditions are not met, prognostic covariate adjustment is still more efficient than raw covariate adjustment and the gain in efficiency is proportional to a measure of the predictive accuracy of the prognostic model above and beyond the linear relationship with the raw covariates. We demonstrate the approach using simulations and a reanalysis of an Alzheimer's Disease clinical trial and observe meaningful reductions in mean-squared error and the estimated variance. Lastly, we provide a simplified formula for asymptotic variance that enables power calculations that account for these gains. Sample size reductions between 10% and 30% are attainable when using prognostic models that explain a clinically realistic percentage of the outcome variance.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Machine Learning (Stat)

๐Ÿ”ฎ ๐Ÿ”ฎ The Ethereal

Layer Normalization

Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, Geoffrey E. Hinton

stat.ML ๐Ÿ› arXiv ๐Ÿ“š 12.0K cites 10 years ago

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted