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

Yongming Qu

Yongming Qu contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyApplicationsComputation

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
3topics
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

4 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Missing data imputation for a multivariate outcome of mixed variable types

Data collected in clinical trials are often composed of multiple types of variables. For example, laboratory measurements and vital signs are longitudinal data of continuous or categorical variables, adverse events may be recurrent events, and death is a time-to-event variable. Missing data due to patients' discontinuation from the study or as a result of handling intercurrent events using a hypothetical strategy almost always occur during any clinical trial. Imputing these data with mixed types of variables simultaneously is a challenge that has not been studied extensively. In this article, we propose using an approximate fully conditional specification to impute the missing data. Simulation shows the proposed method provides satisfactory results under the assumption of missing at random. Finally, real data from a clinical trial evaluating treatments for diabetes are analyzed to illustrate the potential benefit of the proposed method.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Defining Estimands Using a Mix of Strategies to Handle Intercurrent Events in Clinical Trials

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard for evaluation of the efficacy and safety of investigational interventions. If every patient in an RCT were to adhere to the randomized treatment, one could simply analyze the complete data to infer the treatment effect. However, intercurrent events (ICEs) including the use of concomitant medication for unsatisfactory efficacy, treatment discontinuation due to adverse events, or lack of efficacy, may lead to interventions that deviate from the original treatment assignment. Therefore, defining the appropriate estimand (the appropriate parameter to be estimated) based on the primary objective of the study is critical prior to determining the statistical analysis method and analyzing the data. The International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) E9 (R1), published on November 20, 2019, provided 5 strategies to define the estimand: treatment policy, hypothetical, composite variable, while on treatment and principal stratum. In this article, we propose an estimand using a mix of strategies in handling ICEs. This estimand is an average of the null treatment difference for those with ICEs potentially related to safety and the treatment difference for the other patients if they would complete the assigned treatments. Two examples from clinical trials evaluating anti-diabetes treatments are provided to illustrate the estimation of this proposed estimand and to compare it with the estimates for estimands using hypothetical and treatment policy strategies in handling ICEs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Implementation of Tripartite Estimands Using Adherence Causal Estimators Under the Causal Inference Framework

Intercurrent events (ICEs) and missing values are inevitable in clinical trials of any size and duration, making it difficult to assess the treatment effect for all patients in randomized clinical trials. Defining the appropriate estimand that is relevant to the clinical research question is the first step in analyzing data. The tripartite estimands, which evaluate the treatment differences in the proportion of patients with ICEs due to adverse events, the proportion of patients with ICEs due to lack of efficacy, and the primary efficacy outcome for those who can adhere to study treatment under the causal inference framework, are of interest to many stakeholders in understanding the totality of treatment effects. In this manuscript, we discuss the details of how to estimate tripartite estimands based on a causal inference framework and how to interpret tripartite estimates through a phase 3 clinical study evaluating a basal insulin treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Understanding and adjusting the selection bias from a proof-of-concept study to a more confirmatory study

It has long been noticed that the efficacy observed in small early phase studies is generally better than that observed in later larger studies. Historically, the inflation of the efficacy results from early proof-of-concept studies is either ignored, or adjusted empirically using a frequentist or Bayesian approach. In this article, we systematically explained the underlying reason for the inflation of efficacy results in small early phase studies from the perspectives of measurement error models and selection bias. A systematic method was built to adjust the early phase study results from both frequentist and Bayesian perspectives. A hierarchical model was proposed to estimate the distribution of the efficacy for a portfolio of compounds, which can serve as the prior distribution for the Bayesian approach. We showed through theory that the systematic adjustment provides an unbiased estimator for the true mean efficacy for a portfolio of compounds. The adjustment was applied to paired data for the efficacy in early small and later larger studies for a set of compounds in diabetes and immunology. After the adjustment, the bias in the early phase small studies seems to be diminished.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access