4.5 Article

Subgroup identification from randomized clinical trial data

期刊

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 24, 页码 2867-2880

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.4322

关键词

randomized clinical trials; subgroups; random forests; regression trees; tailored therapeutics

资金

  1. Eli Lilly Corporation
  2. National Institutes of Health [T32 CA083654]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We consider the problem of identifying a subgroup of patients who may have an enhanced treatment effect in a randomized clinical trial, and it is desirable that the subgroup be defined by a limited number of covariates. For this problem, the development of a standard, pre-determined strategy may help to avoid the well-known dangers of subgroup analysis. We present a method developed to find subgroups of enhanced treatment effect. This method, referred to as 'Virtual Twins', involves predicting response probabilities for treatment and control 'twins' for each subject. The difference in these probabilities is then used as the outcome in a classification or regression tree, which can potentially include any set of the covariates. We define a measure Q((A) over cap) to be the difference between the treatment effect in estimated subgroup ((A) over cap) and the marginal treatment effect. We present several methods developed to obtain an estimate of Q((A) over cap), including estimation of Q((A) over cap) using estimated probabilities in the original data, using estimated probabilities in newly simulated data, two cross-validation-based approaches, and a bootstrap-based bias-corrected approach. Results of a simulation study indicate that the Virtual Twins method noticeably outperforms logistic regression with forward selection when a true subgroup of enhanced treatment effect exists. Generally, large sample sizes or strong enhanced treatment effects are needed for subgroup estimation. As an illustration, we apply the proposed methods to data from a randomized clinical trial. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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