BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Ekkehard Glimm

Ekkehard Glimm contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
ApplicationsMethodologymath.STStatistics Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
8works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

8 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

CohortPlat: Simulation of cohort platform trials investigating combination therapies

Platform trials have gained a lot of attention recently as a possible remedy for time-consuming classical two-arm randomized controlled trials, especially in early phase drug development. This short article illustrates how to use the CohortPlat R package to simulate a cohort platform trial, where each cohort consists of a combination treatment and the respective monotherapies and standard-of-care. The endpoint is always assumed to be binary. The package offers extensive flexibility with respect to both platform trial trajectories, as well as treatment effect scenarios and decision rules. As a special feature, the package provides a designated function for running multiple such simulations efficiently in parallel and saving the results in a concise manner. Many illustrations of code usage are provided.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Familywise error rate control for block response-adaptive randomization

Response-adaptive randomization allows the probabilities of allocating patients to treatments in a clinical trial to change based on the previously observed response data, in order to achieve different experimental goals. One concern over the use of such designs in practice, particularly from a regulatory viewpoint, is controlling the type I error rate. To address this, Robertson and Wason (Biometrics, 2019) proposed methodology that guarantees familywise error rate control for a large class of response-adaptive designs. In this paper, we propose an improvement of their proposal that is conceptually simpler, in the specific context of block-randomised trials with a fixed allocation to the control arm. We show the modified method guarantees that there will never be negative weights for blocks of data, and can also provide a substantial power advantage in practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On model-based time trend adjustments in platform trials with non-concurrent controls

Platform trials can evaluate the efficacy of several treatments compared to a control. The number of treatments is not fixed, as arms may be added or removed as the trial progresses. Platform trials are more efficient than independent parallel-group trials because of using shared control groups. For arms entering the trial later, not all patients in the control group are randomised concurrently. The control group is then divided into concurrent and non-concurrent controls. Using non-concurrent controls (NCC) can improve the trial's efficiency, but can introduce bias due to time trends. We focus on a platform trial with two treatment arms and a common control arm. Assuming that the second treatment arm is added later, we assess the robustness of model-based approaches to adjust for time trends when using NCC. We consider approaches where time trends are modeled as linear or as a step function, with steps at times where arms enter or leave the trial. For trials with continuous or binary outcomes, we investigate the type 1 error (t1e) rate and power of testing the efficacy of the newly added arm under a range of scenarios. In addition to scenarios where time trends are equal across arms, we investigate settings with trends that are different or not additive in the model scale. A step function model fitted on data from all arms gives increased power while controlling the t1e, as long as the time trends are equal for the different arms and additive on the model scale. This holds even if the trend's shape deviates from a step function if block randomisation is used. But if trends differ between arms or are not additive on the model scale, t1e control may be lost. The efficiency gained by using step function models to incorporate NCC can outweigh potential biases. However, the specifics of the trial, plausibility of different time trends, and robustness of results should be considered

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Decision rules for identifying combination therapies in open-entry, randomized controlled platform trials

Platform trials have become increasingly popular for drug development programs, attracting interest from statisticians, clinicians and regulatory agencies. Many statistical questions related to designing platform trials - such as the impact of decision rules, sharing of information across cohorts, and allocation ratios on operating characteristics and error rates - remain unanswered. In many platform trials, the definition of error rates is not straightforward as classical error rate concepts are not applicable. For an open-entry, exploratory platform trial design comparing combination therapies to the respective monotherapies and standard-of-care, we define a set of error rates and operating characteristics and then use these to compare a set of design parameters under a range of simulation assumptions. When setting up the simulations, we aimed for realistic trial trajectories, such that e.g. a priori we do not know the exact number of treatments that will be included over time in a specific simulation run as this follows a stochastic mechanism. Our results indicate that the method of data sharing, exact specification of decision rules and a priori assumptions regarding the treatment efficacy all strongly contribute to the operating characteristics of the platform trial. Furthermore, different operating characteristics might be of importance to different stakeholders. Together with the potential flexibility and complexity of a platform trial, which also impact the achieved operating characteristics via e.g. the degree of efficiency of data sharing, this implies that utmost care needs to be given to evaluation of different assumptions and design parameters at the design stage.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Geometric approaches to assessing the numerical feasibility for conducting matching-adjusted indirect comparisons

We discuss how to handle matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) from a data analyst's perspective. We introduce several multivariate data analysis methods to assess the appropriateness of MAIC for a given data set. These methods focus on comparing the baseline variables used in the matching from a study that provides the summary statistics, or aggregated data (AD) and a study that provides individual patient level data (IPD). The methods identify situations when no numerical solutions are possible with the MAIC method. This helps to avoid misleading results being produced. Moreover, it has been observed that sometimes contradicting results are reported by two sets of MAIC analyses produced by two teams, each having their own IPD and applying MAIC using the AD published by the other team. We show that an intrinsic property of the MAIC estimated weights can be a contributing factor for this phenomenon.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Confidence intervals with maximal average power

We propose a frequentist testing procedure that maintains a defined coverage and is optimal in the sense that it gives maximal power to detect deviations from a null hypothesis when the alternative to the null hypothesis is sampled from a pre-specified distribution (the prior distribution). Selecting a prior distribution allows to tune the decision rule. This leads to an increased power, if the true data generating distribution happens to be compatible with the prior. It comes at the cost of losing power, if the data generating distribution or the observed data are incompatible with the prior. We illustrate the proposed approach for a binomial experiment, which is sufficiently simple such that the decision sets can be illustrated in figures, which should facilitate an intuitive understanding. The potential beyond the simple example will be discussed: the approach is generic in that the test is defined based on the likelihood function and the prior only. It is comparatively simple to implement and efficient to execute, since it does not rely on Minimax optimization. Conceptually it is interesting to note that for constructing the testing procedure the Bayesian posterior probability distribution is used.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Some Notes on Blinded Sample Size Re-Estimation

This note investigates a number of scenarios in which unadjusted testing following a blinded sample size re-estimation leads to type I error violations. For superiority testing, this occurs in certain small-sample borderline cases. We discuss a number of alternative approaches that keep the type I error rate. The paper also gives a reason why the type I error inflation in the superiority context might have been missed in previous publications and investigates why it is more marked in case of non-inferiority testing.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Exact Multivariate Tests - A New Effective Principle of Controlled Model Choice

High-dimensional tests are applied to find relevant sets of variables and relevant models. If variables are selected by analyzing the sums of products matrices and a corresponding mean-value test is performed, there is the danger that the nominal error of first kind is exceeded. In the paper, well-known multivariate tests receive a new mathematical interpretation such that the error of first kind of the combined testing and selecting procedure can more easily be kept. The null hypotheses on mean values are replaced by hypotheses on distributional sphericity of the individual score responses. Thus, model choice is possible without too strong restrictions. The method is presented for all linear multivariate designs. It is illustrated by an example from bioinformatics: The selection of gene sets for the comparison of groups of patients suffering from B-cell lymphomas.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access