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

Lorenzo Trippa

Lorenzo Trippa contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyApplicationsmath.STStatistics Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
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

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Bayesian Multi-Arm De-Intensification Designs

In recent years new cancer treatments improved survival in multiple histologies. Some of these therapeutics, and in particular treatment combinations, are often associated with severe treatment-related adverse events (AEs). It is therefore important to identify alternative de-intensified therapies, for example dose-reduced therapies, with reduced AEs and similar efficacy. We introduce a sequential design for multi-arm de-intensification studies. The design evaluates multiple de-intensified therapies at different dose levels, one at the time, based on modeling of toxicity and efficacy endpoints. We study the utility of the design in oropharynx cancer de-intensification studies. We use a Bayesian nonparametric model for efficacy and toxicity outcomes to define decision rules at interim and final analysis. Interim decisions include early termination of the study due to inferior survival of experimental arms compared to the standard of care (SOC), and transitions from one de-intensified treatment arm to another with a further reduced dose when there is sufficient evidence of non-inferior survival. We evaluate the operating characteristics of the design using simulations and data from recent de-intensification studies in human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated oropharynx cancer.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Interpretable Model Summaries Using the Wasserstein Distance

Statistical models often include thousands of parameters. However, large models decrease the investigator's ability to interpret and communicate the estimated parameters. Reducing the dimensionality of the parameter space in the estimation phase is a commonly used approach, but less work has focused on selecting subsets of the parameters for interpreting the estimated model -- especially in settings such as Bayesian inference and model averaging. Importantly, many models do not have straightforward interpretations and create another layer of obfuscation. To solve this gap, we introduce a new method that uses the Wasserstein distance to identify a low-dimensional interpretable model projection. After the estimation of complex models, users can budget how many parameters they wish to interpret and the proposed generates a simplified model of the desired dimension minimizing the distance to the full model. We provide simulation results to illustrate the method and apply it to cancer datasets.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Sensitivity Analyses of Clinical Trial Designs: Selecting Scenarios and Summarizing Operating Characteristics

The use of simulation-based sensitivity analyses is fundamental to evaluate and compare candidate designs for future clinical trials. In this context, sensitivity analyses are especially useful to assess the dependence of important design operating characteristics (OCs) with respect to various unknown parameters (UPs). Typical examples of OCs include the likelihood of detecting treatment effects and the average study duration, which depend on UPs that are not known until after the onset of the clinical study, such as the distributions of the primary outcomes and patient profiles. Two crucial components of sensitivity analyses are (i) the choice of a set of plausible simulation scenarios $\{\boldsymbolθ_1,...,\boldsymbolθ_K\}$ and (ii) the list of OCs of interest. We propose a new approach to choose the set of scenarios for inclusion in design sensitivity analyses. Our approach balances the need for simplicity and interpretability of OCs computed across several scenarios with the need to faithfully summarize -- through simulations -- how the OCs vary across all plausible values of the UPs. Our proposal also supports the selection of the number of simulation scenarios to be included in the final sensitivity analysis report. To achieve these goals, we minimize a loss function $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbolθ_1,...,\boldsymbolθ_K)$ that formalizes whether a specific set of $K$ sensitivity scenarios $\{\boldsymbolθ_1,...,\boldsymbolθ_K\}$ is adequate to summarize how the OCs of the trial design vary across all plausible values of the UPs. Then, we use optimization techniques to select the best set of simulation scenarios to exemplify the OCs of the trial design.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Bayesian Combinatorial Multi-Study Factor Analysis

Analyzing multiple studies allows leveraging data from a range of sources and populations, but until recently, there have been limited methodologies to approach the joint unsupervised analysis of multiple high-dimensional studies. A recent method, Bayesian Multi-Study Factor Analysis (BMSFA), identifies latent factors common to all studies, as well as latent factors specific to individual studies. However, BMSFA does not allow for partially shared factors, i.e. latent factors shared by more than one but less than all studies. We extend BMSFA by introducing a new method, Tetris, for Bayesian combinatorial multi-study factor analysis, which identifies latent factors that can be shared by any combination of studies. We model the subsets of studies that share latent factors with an Indian Buffet Process. We test our method with an extensive range of simulations, and showcase its utility not only in dimension reduction but also in covariance estimation. Finally, we apply Tetris to high-dimensional gene expression datasets to identify patterns in breast cancer gene expression, both within and across known classes defined by germline mutations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Combining Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models

Accurate risk stratification is key to reducing cancer morbidity through targeted screening and preventative interventions. Numerous breast cancer risk prediction models have been developed, but they often give predictions with conflicting clinical implications. Integrating information from different models may improve the accuracy of risk predictions, which would be valuable for both clinicians and patients. BRCAPRO and BCRAT are two widely used models based on largely complementary sets of risk factors. BRCAPRO is a Bayesian model that uses detailed family history information to estimate the probability of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation, as well as future risk of breast and ovarian cancer, based on mutation prevalence and penetrance (age-specific probability of developing cancer given genotype). BCRAT uses a relative hazard model based on first-degree family history and non-genetic risk factors. We consider two approaches for combining BRCAPRO and BCRAT: 1) modifying the penetrance functions in BRCAPRO using relative hazard estimates from BCRAT, and 2) training an ensemble model that takes as input BRCAPRO and BCRAT predictions. We show that the combination models achieve performance gains over BRCAPRO and BCRAT in simulations and data from the Cancer Genetics Network.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Integration of Survival Data from Multiple Studies

We introduce a statistical procedure that integrates survival data from multiple biomedical studies, to improve the accuracy of predictions of survival or other events, based on individual clinical and genomic profiles, compared to models developed leveraging only a single study or meta-analytic methods. The method accounts for potential differences in the relation between predictors and outcomes across studies, due to distinct patient populations, treatments and technologies to measure outcomes and biomarkers. These differences are modeled explicitly with study-specific parameters. We use hierarchical regularization to shrink the study-specific parameters towards each other and to borrow information across studies. Shrinkage of the study-specific parameters is controlled by a similarity matrix, which summarizes differences and similarities of the relations between covariates and outcomes across studies. We illustrate the method in a simulation study and using a collection of gene-expression datasets in ovarian cancer. We show that the proposed model increases the accuracy of survival prediction compared to alternative meta-analytic methods.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Optimality of testing procedures for survival data

Most statistical tests for treatment effects used in randomized clinical trials with survival outcomes are based on the proportional hazards assumption, which often fails in practice. Data from early exploratory studies may provide evidence of non-proportional hazards which can guide the choice of alternative tests in the design of practice-changing confirmatory trials. We study a test to detect treatment effects in a late-stage trial which accounts for the deviations from proportional hazards suggested by early-stage data. Conditional on early-stage data, among all tests which control the frequentist Type I error rate at a fixed $α$ level, our testing procedure maximizes the Bayesian prediction of the finite-sample power. Hence, the proposed test provides a useful benchmark for other tests commonly used in presence of non-proportional hazards, for example weighted log-rank tests. We illustrate the approach in a simulations based on data from a published cancer immunotherapy phase III trial.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access