评估多中心试验中二元或连续结果中央统计监测方法的性能:模拟研究

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Li Ge , Zhongkai Wang , Charles C. Liu , Spencer Childress , Jeremy Wildfire , George Wu
{"title":"评估多中心试验中二元或连续结果中央统计监测方法的性能:模拟研究","authors":"Li Ge ,&nbsp;Zhongkai Wang ,&nbsp;Charles C. Liu ,&nbsp;Spencer Childress ,&nbsp;Jeremy Wildfire ,&nbsp;George Wu","doi":"10.1016/j.cct.2024.107580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Quality study monitoring is fundamental to patient safety and data integrity. Regulators and industry consortia have increasingly advocated for risk-based monitoring (RBM) and central statistical monitoring (CSM) for more effective and efficient monitoring. Assessing which statistical methods underpin these approaches can best identify unusual data patterns in multi-center clinical trials that may be driven by potential systematic errors is important.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We assessed various CSM techniques, including cross-tests, fixed-effects, mixed-effects, and finite mixture models, across scenarios with different sample sizes, contamination rates, and overdispersion via simulation. Our evaluation utilized threshold-independent metrics such as the area under the curve (AUC) and average precision (AP), offering a fuller picture of CSM performance.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>All CSM methods showed consistent characteristics across center sizes or overdispersion. The adaptive finite mixture model outperformed others in AUC and AP, especially at 30% contamination, upholding high specificity unless converging to a single-component model due to low contamination or deviation. The mixed-effects model performed well at lower contamination rates. However, it became conservative in specificity and exhibited declined performance for binary outcomes under high deviation. Cross-tests and fixed-effects methods underperformed, especially when deviation increased.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our evaluation explored the merits and drawbacks of multiple CSM methods, and found that relying on sensitivity and specificity alone is likely insufficient to fully measure predictive performance. The finite mixture method demonstrated more consistent performance across scenarios by mitigating the influence of outliers. In practice, considering the study-specific costs of false positives/negatives with available resources for monitoring is important.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10636,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary clinical trials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the performance of methods for central statistical monitoring of a binary or continuous outcome in multi-center trials: A simulation study\",\"authors\":\"Li Ge ,&nbsp;Zhongkai Wang ,&nbsp;Charles C. Liu ,&nbsp;Spencer Childress ,&nbsp;Jeremy Wildfire ,&nbsp;George Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cct.2024.107580\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Quality study monitoring is fundamental to patient safety and data integrity. Regulators and industry consortia have increasingly advocated for risk-based monitoring (RBM) and central statistical monitoring (CSM) for more effective and efficient monitoring. Assessing which statistical methods underpin these approaches can best identify unusual data patterns in multi-center clinical trials that may be driven by potential systematic errors is important.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We assessed various CSM techniques, including cross-tests, fixed-effects, mixed-effects, and finite mixture models, across scenarios with different sample sizes, contamination rates, and overdispersion via simulation. Our evaluation utilized threshold-independent metrics such as the area under the curve (AUC) and average precision (AP), offering a fuller picture of CSM performance.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>All CSM methods showed consistent characteristics across center sizes or overdispersion. The adaptive finite mixture model outperformed others in AUC and AP, especially at 30% contamination, upholding high specificity unless converging to a single-component model due to low contamination or deviation. The mixed-effects model performed well at lower contamination rates. However, it became conservative in specificity and exhibited declined performance for binary outcomes under high deviation. Cross-tests and fixed-effects methods underperformed, especially when deviation increased.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our evaluation explored the merits and drawbacks of multiple CSM methods, and found that relying on sensitivity and specificity alone is likely insufficient to fully measure predictive performance. The finite mixture method demonstrated more consistent performance across scenarios by mitigating the influence of outliers. In practice, considering the study-specific costs of false positives/negatives with available resources for monitoring is important.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10636,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary clinical trials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary clinical trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1551714424001630\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1551714424001630","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景高质量的研究监测对患者安全和数据完整性至关重要。监管机构和行业联盟越来越多地提倡基于风险的监查(RBM)和中央统计监查(CSM),以提高监查的效果和效率。我们通过模拟,在不同样本量、污染率和过度分散的情况下评估了各种 CSM 技术,包括交叉检验、固定效应、混合效应和有限混合模型。我们的评估采用了与阈值无关的指标,如曲线下面积(AUC)和平均精度(AP),从而更全面地反映了 CSM 的性能。自适应有限混合物模型的 AUC 和 AP 均优于其他方法,尤其是在污染率为 30% 的情况下,除非因污染或偏差较低而收敛至单成分模型,否则该模型仍能保持较高的特异性。混合效应模型在污染率较低时表现良好。然而,它的特异性变得保守,在高偏差情况下,二元结果的性能下降。我们的评估探讨了多种 CSM 方法的优缺点,发现仅仅依靠灵敏度和特异性可能不足以全面衡量预测性能。有限混合法通过减轻异常值的影响,在不同情况下表现出更一致的性能。在实践中,考虑特定研究的假阳性/阴性成本和可用的监测资源非常重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the performance of methods for central statistical monitoring of a binary or continuous outcome in multi-center trials: A simulation study

Background

Quality study monitoring is fundamental to patient safety and data integrity. Regulators and industry consortia have increasingly advocated for risk-based monitoring (RBM) and central statistical monitoring (CSM) for more effective and efficient monitoring. Assessing which statistical methods underpin these approaches can best identify unusual data patterns in multi-center clinical trials that may be driven by potential systematic errors is important.

Methods

We assessed various CSM techniques, including cross-tests, fixed-effects, mixed-effects, and finite mixture models, across scenarios with different sample sizes, contamination rates, and overdispersion via simulation. Our evaluation utilized threshold-independent metrics such as the area under the curve (AUC) and average precision (AP), offering a fuller picture of CSM performance.

Results

All CSM methods showed consistent characteristics across center sizes or overdispersion. The adaptive finite mixture model outperformed others in AUC and AP, especially at 30% contamination, upholding high specificity unless converging to a single-component model due to low contamination or deviation. The mixed-effects model performed well at lower contamination rates. However, it became conservative in specificity and exhibited declined performance for binary outcomes under high deviation. Cross-tests and fixed-effects methods underperformed, especially when deviation increased.

Conclusion

Our evaluation explored the merits and drawbacks of multiple CSM methods, and found that relying on sensitivity and specificity alone is likely insufficient to fully measure predictive performance. The finite mixture method demonstrated more consistent performance across scenarios by mitigating the influence of outliers. In practice, considering the study-specific costs of false positives/negatives with available resources for monitoring is important.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
281
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes manuscripts pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from disciplines including medicine, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioural science, pharmaceutical science, and bioethics. Full-length papers and short communications not exceeding 1,500 words, as well as systemic reviews of clinical trials and methodologies will be published. Perspectives/commentaries on current issues and the impact of clinical trials on the practice of medicine and health policy are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信