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

Tim Friede

Tim Friede contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyApplicationsMachine LearningArtificial Intelligencecs.CYOther Quantitative BiologyQuantitative Methodsstat.OT

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
17works
0followers
8topics
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

17 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

The impact of neglected confounding and interactions in mixed-effects meta-regression

Analysts seldom include interaction terms in meta-regression model, what can introduce bias if an interaction is present. We illustrate this in the current paper by re-analyzing an example from research on acute heart failure, where neglecting an interaction might have led to erroneous inference and conclusions. Moreover, we perform a brief simulation study based on this example highlighting the effects caused by omitting or unnecessarily including interaction terms. Based on our results, we recommend to always include interaction terms in mixed-effects meta-regression models, when such interactions are plausible.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

A straightforward meta-analysis approach for oncology phase I dose-finding studies

Phase I early-phase clinical studies aim at investigating the safety and the underlying dose-toxicity relationship of a drug or combination. While little may still be known about the compound's properties, it is crucial to consider quantitative information available from any studies that may have been conducted previously on the same drug. A meta-analytic approach has the advantages of being able to properly account for between-study heterogeneity, and it may be readily extended to prediction or shrinkage applications. Here we propose a simple and robust two-stage approach for the estimation of maximum tolerated dose(s) (MTDs) utilizing penalized logistic regression and Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis methodology. Implementation is facilitated using standard R packages. The properties of the proposed methods are investigated in Monte-Carlo simulations. The investigations are motivated and illustrated by two examples from oncology.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Coping with Information Loss and the Use of Auxiliary Sources of Data: A Report from the NISS Ingram Olkin Forum Series on Unplanned Clinical Trial Disruptions

Clinical trials disruption has always represented a non negligible part of the ending of interventional studies. While the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to an impressive and unprecedented initiation of clinical research, it has also led to considerable disruption of clinical trials in other disease areas, with around 80% of non-COVID-19 trials stopped or interrupted during the pandemic. In many cases the disrupted trials will not have the planned statistical power necessary to yield interpretable results. This paper describes methods to compensate for the information loss arising from trial disruptions by incorporating additional information available from auxiliary data sources. The methods described include the use of auxiliary data on baseline and early outcome data available from the trial itself and frequentist and Bayesian approaches for the incorporation of information from external data sources. The methods are illustrated by application to the analysis of artificial data based on the Primary care pediatrics Learning Activity Nutrition (PLAN) study, a clinical trial assessing a diet and exercise intervention for overweight children, that was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We show how all of the methods proposed lead to an increase in precision relative to use of complete case data only.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Double arcsine transform not appropriate for meta-analysis

The variance-stabilizing Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transform was originally proposed for inference on single proportions. Subsequently, its use has been suggested in the context of meta-analysis of proportions. While some erratic behaviour has been observed previously, here we point out and illustrate general issues of monotonicity and invertibility that make this transform unsuitable for meta-analysis purposes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

MetaStan: An R package for Bayesian (model-based) meta-analysis using Stan

Meta-analysis methods are used to combine evidence from multiple studies. Meta-regression as well as model-based meta-analysis are extensions of standard pairwise meta-analysis in which information about study-level covariates and (arm-level) dosing amount or exposure may be taken into account. A Bayesian approach to inference is very attractive in this context, especially when a meta-analysis is based on few studies only or rare events. In this article, we present the R package MetaStan which implements a wide range of pairwise and model-based meta-analysis models. A generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) framework is used to describe the pairwise meta-analysis, meta-regression and model-based meta-analysis models. Within the GLMM framework, the likelihood and link functions are adapted to reflect the nature of the data. For example, a binomial likelihood with a logit link is used to perform a meta-analysis based on datasets with dichotomous endpoints. Bayesian computations are conducted using Stan via the rstan interface. Stan uses a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampler which belongs to the family of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Stan implementations are done by using suitable parametrizations to ease computations. The user-friendly R package MetaStan, available on CRAN, supports a wide range of pairwise and model-based meta-analysis models. MetaStan provides fitting functions for pairwise meta-analysis with the option of including covariates and model-based meta-analysis. The supported outcome types are continuous, binary, and count. Forest plots for the pairwise meta-analysis and dose-response plots for the model-based meta-analysis can be obtained from the package. The use of MetaStan is demonstrated through clinical examples.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Model-based recursive partitioning for discrete event times

Model-based recursive partitioning (MOB) is a semi-parametric statistical approach allowing the identification of subgroups that can be combined with a broad range of outcome measures including continuous time-to-event outcomes. When time is measured on a discrete scale, methods and models need to account for this discreetness as otherwise subgroups might be spurious and effects biased. The test underlying the splitting criterion of MOB, the M-fluctuation test, assumes independent observations. However, for fitting discrete time-to-event models the data matrix has to be modified resulting in an augmented data matrix violating the independence assumption. We propose MOB for discrete Survival data (MOB-dS) which controls the type I error rate of the test used for data splitting and therefore the rate of identifying subgroups although none is present. MOB-ds uses a permutation approach accounting for dependencies in the augmented time-to-event data to obtain the distribution under the null hypothesis of no subgroups being present. Through simulations we investigate the type I error rate of the new MOB-dS and the standard MOB for different patterns of survival curves and event rates. We find that the type I error rates of the test is well controlled for MOB-dS, but observe some considerable inflations of the error rate for MOB. To illustrate the proposed methods, MOB-dS is applied to data on unemployment duration.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On the role of data, statistics and decisions in a pandemic

A pandemic poses particular challenges to decision-making because of the need to continuously adapt decisions to rapidly changing evidence and available data. For example, which countermeasures are appropriate at a particular stage of the pandemic? How can the severity of the pandemic be measured? What is the effect of vaccination in the population and which groups should be vaccinated first? The process of decision-making starts with data collection and modeling and continues to the dissemination of results and the subsequent decisions taken. The goal of this paper is to give an overview of this process and to provide recommendations for the different steps from a statistical perspective. In particular, we discuss a range of modeling techniques including mathematical, statistical and decision-analytic models along with their applications in the COVID-19 context. With this overview, we aim to foster the understanding of the goals of these modeling approaches and the specific data requirements that are essential for the interpretation of results and for successful interdisciplinary collaborations. A special focus is on the role played by data in these different models, and we incorporate into the discussion the importance of statistical literacy, and of effective dissemination and communication of findings.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Bayesian time-to-event pharmacokinetic model for phase I dose-escalation trials with multiple schedules

Phase I dose-escalation trials must be guided by a safety model in order to avoid exposing patients to unacceptably high risk of toxicities. Traditionally, these trials are based on one type of schedule. In more recent practice, however, there is often a need to consider more than one schedule, which means that in addition to the dose itself, the schedule needs to be varied in the trial. Hence, the aim is finding an acceptable dose-schedule combination. However, most established methods for dose-escalation trials are designed to escalate the dose only and ad-hoc choices must be made to adapt these to the more complicated setting of finding an acceptable dose-schedule combination. In this paper, we introduce a Bayesian time-to-event model which takes explicitly the dose amount and schedule into account through the use of pharmacokinetic principles. The model uses a time-varying exposure measure to account for the risk of a dose-limiting toxicity over time. The dose-schedule decisions are informed by an escalation with overdose control criterion. The model is formulated using interpretable parameters which facilitates the specification of priors. In a simulation study, we compared the proposed method with an existing method. The simulation study demonstrates that the proposed method yields similar or better results compared to an existing method in terms of recommending acceptable dose-schedule combinations, yet reduces the number of patients enrolled in most of scenarios. The \texttt{R} and \texttt{Stan} code to implement the proposed method is publicly available from Github (\url{https://github.com/gunhanb/TITEPK_code}).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Bayesian time-to-event pharmacokinetic model for sequential phase I dose-escalation trials with multiple schedules

Phase I dose-escalation trials constitute the first step in investigating the safety of potentially promising drugs in humans. Conventional methods for phase I dose-escalation trials are based on a single treatment schedule only. More recently, however, multiple schedules are more frequently investigated in the same trial. Here, we consider sequential phase I trials, where the trial proceeds with a new schedule (e.g. daily or weekly dosing) once the dose escalation with another schedule has been completed. The aim is to utilize the information from both the completed and the ongoing dose-escalation trial to inform decisions on the dose level for the next dose cohort. For this purpose, we adapted the time-to-event pharmacokinetics (TITE-PK) model, which were originally developed for simultaneous investigation of multiple schedules. TITE-PK integrates information from multiple schedules using a pharmacokinetics (PK) model. In a simulation study, the developed appraoch is compared to the bridging continual reassessment method and the Bayesian logistic regression model using a meta-analytic-prior. TITE-PK results in better performance than comparators in terms of recommending acceptable dose and avoiding overly toxic doses for sequential phase I trials in most of the scenarios considered. Furthermore, better performance of TITE-PK is achieved while requiring similar number of patients in the simulated trials. For the scenarios involving one schedule, TITE-PK displays similar performance with alternatives in terms of acceptable dose recommendations. The \texttt{R} and \texttt{Stan} code for the implementation of an illustrative sequential phase I trial example is publicly available at https://github.com/gunhanb/TITEPK_sequential.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Clinical trials impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic: Adaptive designs to the rescue?

Very recently the new pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was identified and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. The pandemic has a number of consequences for the ongoing clinical trials in non-COVID-19 conditions. Motivated by four currently ongoing clinical trials in a variety of disease areas we illustrate the challenges faced by the pandemic and sketch out possible solutions including adaptive designs. Guidance is provided on (i) where blinded adaptations can help; (ii) how to achieve type I error rate control, if required; (iii) how to deal with potential treatment effect heterogeneity; (iv) how to utilize early readouts; and (v) how to utilize Bayesian techniques. In more detail approaches to resizing a trial affected by the pandemic are developed including considerations to stop a trial early, the use of group-sequential designs or sample size adjustment. All methods considered are implemented in a freely available R shiny app. Furthermore, regulatory and operational issues including the role of data monitoring committees are discussed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Data monitoring committees for clinical trials evaluating treatments of COVID-19

The first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in December 2019 and the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 was declared a pandemic in March 2020 by the World Health Organization. This sparked a plethora of investigations into diagnostics and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2, as well as treatments for COVID-19. Since COVID-19 is a severe disease associated with a high mortality, clinical trials in this disease should be monitored by a data monitoring committee (DMC), also known as data safety monitoring board (DSMB). DMCs in this indication face a number of challenges including fast recruitment requiring an unusually high frequency of safety reviews, more frequent use of complex designs and virtually no prior experience with the disease. In this paper, we provide a perspective on the work of DMCs for clinical trials of treatments for COVID-19. More specifically, we discuss organizational aspects of setting up and running DMCs for COVID-19 trials, in particular for trials with more complex designs such as platform trials or adaptive designs. Furthermore, statistical aspects of monitoring clinical trials of treatments for COVID-19 are considered. Some recommendations are made regarding the presentation of the data, stopping rules for safety monitoring and the use of external data. The proposed stopping boundaries are assessed in a simulation study motivated by clinical trials in COVID-19.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Efficient adaptive designs for clinical trials of interventions for COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented response in terms of clinical research activity. An important part of this research has been focused on randomized controlled clinical trials to evaluate potential therapies for COVID-19. The results from this research need to be obtained as rapidly as possible. This presents a number of challenges associated with considerable uncertainty over the natural history of the disease and the number and characteristics of patients affected, and the emergence of new potential therapies. These challenges make adaptive designs for clinical trials a particularly attractive option. Such designs allow a trial to be modified on the basis of interim analysis data or stopped as soon as sufficiently strong evidence has been observed to answer the research question, without compromising the trial's scientific validity or integrity. In this paper we describe some of the adaptive design approaches that are available and discuss particular issues and challenges associated with their use in the pandemic setting. Our discussion is illustrated by details of four ongoing COVID-19 trials that have used adaptive designs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Is there a role for statistics in artificial intelligence?

The research on and application of artificial intelligence (AI) has triggered a comprehensive scientific, economic, social and political discussion. Here we argue that statistics, as an interdisciplinary scientific field, plays a substantial role both for the theoretical and practical understanding of AI and for its future development. Statistics might even be considered a core element of AI. With its specialist knowledge of data evaluation, starting with the precise formulation of the research question and passing through a study design stage on to analysis and interpretation of the results, statistics is a natural partner for other disciplines in teaching, research and practice. This paper aims at contributing to the current discussion by highlighting the relevance of statistical methodology in the context of AI development. In particular, we discuss contributions of statistics to the field of artificial intelligence concerning methodological development, planning and design of studies, assessment of data quality and data collection, differentiation of causality and associations and assessment of uncertainty in results. Moreover, the paper also deals with the equally necessary and meaningful extension of curricula in schools and universities.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Subgroup identification in individual patient data meta-analysis using model-based recursive partitioning

Model-based recursive partitioning (MOB) can be used to identify subgroups with differing treatment effects. The detection rate of treatment-by-covariate interactions and the accuracy of identified subgroups using MOB depend strongly on the sample size. Using data from multiple randomized controlled clinical trials can overcome the problem of too small samples. However, naively pooling data from multiple trials may result in the identification of spurious subgroups as differences in study design, subject selection and other sources of between-trial heterogeneity are ignored. In order to account for between-trial heterogeneity in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis random-effect models are frequently used. Commonly, heterogeneity in the treatment effect is modelled using random effects whereas heterogeneity in the baseline risks is modelled by either fixed effects or random effects. In this article, we propose metaMOB, a procedure using the generalized mixed-effects model tree (GLMM tree) algorithm for subgroup identification in IPD meta-analysis. Although the application of metaMOB is potentially wider, e.g. randomized experiments with participants in social sciences or preclinical experiments in life sciences, we focus on randomized controlled clinical trials. In a simulation study, metaMOB outperformed GLMM trees assuming a random intercept only and model-based recursive partitioning (MOB), whose algorithm is the basis for GLMM trees, with respect to the false discovery rates, accuracy of identified subgroups and accuracy of estimated treatment effect. The most robust and therefore most promising method is metaMOB with fixed effects for modelling the between-trial heterogeneity in the baseline risks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Using clinical trial registries to inform Copas selection model for publication bias in meta-analysis

Prospective registration of study protocols in clinical trial registries is a useful way to minimize the risk of publication bias in meta-analysis, and several clinical trial registries are available nowadays. However, they are mainly used as a tool for searching studies and information submitted to the registries has not been utilized as efficiently as it could. In addressing publication bias in meta-analyses, sensitivity analysis with the Copas selection model is a more objective alternative to widely-used graphical methods such as the funnel-plot and the trim-and-fill method. Despite its ability to quantify the potential impact of publication bias, a drawback of the model is that some parameters not to be specified. This may result in some difficulty in interpreting the results of the sensitivity analysis. In this paper, we propose an alternative inference procedure for the Copas selection model by utilizing information from clinical trial registries. Our method provides a simple and accurate way to estimate all unknown parameters in the Copas selection model. A simulation study revealed that our proposed method resulted in smaller biases and more accurate confidence intervals than existing methods. Furthermore, two published meta-analyses had been re-analysed to demonstrate how to implement the proposed method in practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

Dynamically borrowing strength from another study through shrinkage estimation

Meta-analytic methods may be used to combine evidence from different sources of information. Quite commonly, the normal-normal hierarchical model (NNHM) including a random-effect to account for between-study heterogeneity is utilized for such analyses. The same modeling framework may also be used to not only derive a combined estimate, but also to borrow strength for a particular study from another by deriving a shrinkage estimate. For instance, a small-scale randomized controlled trial could be supported by a non-randomized study, e.g. a clinical registry. This would be particularly attractive in the context of rare diseases. We demonstrate that a meta-analysis still makes sense in this extreme two-study setup, as illustrated using a recent trial and a clinical registry in Creutzfeld-Jakob disease. Derivation of a shrinkage estimate within a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis may substantially improve a given estimate even based on only a single additional estimate while accounting for potential effect heterogeneity between the studies. Alternatively, inference may equivalently be motivated via a model specification that does not require a common overall mean parameter but considers the treatment effect in one study, and the difference in effects between the studies. The proposed approach is quite generally applicable to combine different types of evidence originating e.g. from meta-analyses or individual studies. An application of this more general setup is provided in immunosuppression following liver transplantation in children.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

Meta-analysis of few studies involving rare events

Meta-analyses of clinical trials targeting rare events face particular challenges when the data lack adequate numbers of events for all treatment arms. Especially when the number of studies is low, standard meta-analysis methods can lead to serious distortions because of such data sparsity. To overcome this, we suggest the use of weakly informative priors (WIP) for the treatment effect parameter of a Bayesian meta-analysis model, which may also be seen as a form of penalization. As a data model, we use a binomial-normal hierarchical model (BNHM) which does not require continuity corrections in case of zero counts in one or both arms. We suggest a normal prior for the log odds ratio with mean 0 and standard deviation 2.82, which is motivated (1) as a symmetric prior centred around unity and constraining the odds ratio to within a range from 1/250 to 250 with 95 % probability, and (2) as consistent with empirically observed effect estimates from a set of $\mbox{$37\,773$}$ meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In a simulation study with rare events and few studies, our BNHM with a WIP outperformed a Bayesian method without a WIP and a maximum likelihood estimator in terms of smaller bias and shorter interval estimates with similar coverage. Furthermore, the methods are illustrated by a systematic review in immunosuppression of rare safety events following paediatric transplantation. A publicly available $\textbf{R}$ package, $\texttt{MetaStan}$, is developed to automate the $\textbf{Stan}$ implementation of meta-analysis models using WIPs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access