4.5 Article

Multi-armed Bandit Models for the Optimal Design of Clinical Trials: Benefits and Challenges

期刊

STATISTICAL SCIENCE
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 199-215

出版社

INST MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS
DOI: 10.1214/14-STS504

关键词

Multi-armed bandit; Gittins index; Whittle index; patient allocation; response adaptive procedures

资金

  1. UK Medical Research Council [G0800860, MR/J004979/1]
  2. Biometrika Trust
  3. MRC [MC_UP_1302/4, MR/J004979/1, MC_UU_12013/1, MC_UU_12013/9, MC_UP_1302/2] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [MR/J004979/1, MC_UU_12013/9, MC_UP_1302/2, MC_UU_12013/1, MC_UP_1302/4, MR/N501906/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multi-armed bandit problems (MABPs) are a special type of optimal control problem well suited to model resource allocation under uncertainty in a wide variety of contexts. Since the first publication of the optimal solution of the classic MABP by a dynamic index rule, the bandit literature quickly diversified and emerged as an active research topic. Across this literature, the use of bandit models to optimally design clinical trials became a typical motivating application, yet little of the resulting theory has ever been used in the actual design and analysis of clinical trials. To this end, we review two MABP decision-theoretic approaches to the optimal allocation of treatments in a clinical trial: the infinite-horizon Bayesian Bernoulli MABP and the finite-horizon variant. These models possess distinct theoretical properties and lead to separate allocation rules in a clinical trial design context. We evaluate their performance compared to other allocation rules, including fixed randomization. Our results indicate that bandit approaches offer significant advantages, in terms of assigning more patients to better treatments, and severe limitations, in terms of their resulting statistical power. We propose a novel bandit-based patient allocation rule that overcomes the issue of low power, thus removing a potential barrier for their use in practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据