{"title":"网络 Meta 分析中治疗池的广义融合拉索(Generalized Fused Lasso for Treatment Pooling in Network Meta-Analysis)。","authors":"Xiangshan Kong, Caitlin H Daly, Audrey Béliveau","doi":"10.1002/sim.10253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This work develops a generalized fused lasso (GFL) approach to fitting contrast-based network meta-analysis (NMA) models. The GFL method penalizes all pairwise differences between treatment effects, resulting in the pooling of treatments that are not sufficiently different. This approach offers an intriguing avenue for potentially mitigating biases in treatment rankings and reducing sparsity in networks. To fit contrast-based NMA models within the GFL framework, we formulate the models as generalized least squares problems, where the precision matrix depends on the standard error in the data, the estimated between-study heterogeneity and the correlation between contrasts in multi-arm studies. By utilizing a Cholesky decomposition of the precision matrix, we linearly transform the data vector and design matrix to frame NMA within the GFL framework. We demonstrate how to construct the GFL penalty such that every pairwise difference is penalized similarly. The model is straightforward to implement in R via the \"genlasso\" package, and runs instantaneously, contrary to other regularization approaches that are Bayesian. A two-step GFL-NMA approach is recommended to obtain measures of uncertainty associated with the (pooled) relative treatment effects. Two simulation studies confirm the GFL approach's ability to pool treatments that have the same (or similar) effects while also revealing when incorrect pooling may occur, and its potential benefits against alternative methods. The novel GFL-NMA method is successfully applied to a real-world dataset on diabetes where the standard NMA model was not favored compared to the best-fitting GFL-NMA model with AICc selection of the tuning parameter ( <math> <semantics><mrow><mi>Δ</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>I</mi> <mi>C</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mo>></mo> <mn>13</mn> <mo>)</mo></mrow> <annotation>$$ \\Delta AICc>13\\Big) $$</annotation></semantics> </math> .</p>","PeriodicalId":21879,"journal":{"name":"Statistics in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Generalized Fused Lasso for Treatment Pooling in Network Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Xiangshan Kong, Caitlin H Daly, Audrey Béliveau\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/sim.10253\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This work develops a generalized fused lasso (GFL) approach to fitting contrast-based network meta-analysis (NMA) models. The GFL method penalizes all pairwise differences between treatment effects, resulting in the pooling of treatments that are not sufficiently different. This approach offers an intriguing avenue for potentially mitigating biases in treatment rankings and reducing sparsity in networks. To fit contrast-based NMA models within the GFL framework, we formulate the models as generalized least squares problems, where the precision matrix depends on the standard error in the data, the estimated between-study heterogeneity and the correlation between contrasts in multi-arm studies. By utilizing a Cholesky decomposition of the precision matrix, we linearly transform the data vector and design matrix to frame NMA within the GFL framework. We demonstrate how to construct the GFL penalty such that every pairwise difference is penalized similarly. The model is straightforward to implement in R via the \\\"genlasso\\\" package, and runs instantaneously, contrary to other regularization approaches that are Bayesian. A two-step GFL-NMA approach is recommended to obtain measures of uncertainty associated with the (pooled) relative treatment effects. Two simulation studies confirm the GFL approach's ability to pool treatments that have the same (or similar) effects while also revealing when incorrect pooling may occur, and its potential benefits against alternative methods. The novel GFL-NMA method is successfully applied to a real-world dataset on diabetes where the standard NMA model was not favored compared to the best-fitting GFL-NMA model with AICc selection of the tuning parameter ( <math> <semantics><mrow><mi>Δ</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>I</mi> <mi>C</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mo>></mo> <mn>13</mn> <mo>)</mo></mrow> <annotation>$$ \\\\Delta AICc>13\\\\Big) $$</annotation></semantics> </math> .</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21879,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statistics in Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statistics in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.10253\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.10253","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这项研究开发了一种广义融合套索(GFL)方法,用于拟合基于对比的网络荟萃分析(NMA)模型。GFL 方法对治疗效果之间的所有成对差异进行惩罚,从而将差异不够大的治疗集中起来。这种方法为减轻治疗排名的偏差和减少网络的稀疏性提供了一个有趣的途径。为了在 GFL 框架内拟合基于对比度的 NMA 模型,我们将模型表述为广义最小二乘法问题,其中精度矩阵取决于数据的标准误差、估计的研究间异质性以及多臂研究中对比度之间的相关性。通过利用精确矩阵的 Cholesky 分解,我们对数据向量和设计矩阵进行线性变换,从而在 GFL 框架内构建 NMA。我们演示了如何构建 GFL 惩罚,使每一对差异都受到类似的惩罚。该模型可通过 "genlasso "软件包在 R 中直接实现,并且与其他贝叶斯正则化方法不同,该模型可即时运行。建议采用两步 GFL-NMA 方法,以获得与(汇总)相对治疗效果相关的不确定性度量。两项模拟研究证实了 GFL 方法能够汇集具有相同(或相似)效果的治疗,同时还揭示了可能出现不正确汇集的情况,以及与其他方法相比的潜在优势。新颖的 GFL-NMA 方法成功地应用于糖尿病的真实世界数据集,在该数据集中,标准的 NMA 模型与最佳拟合 GFL-NMA 模型相比并不占优势,GFL-NMA 模型的调整参数为 AICc 选择(Δ A I C c > 13 )$$ \Delta AICc>13\Big) $$ 。
Generalized Fused Lasso for Treatment Pooling in Network Meta-Analysis.
This work develops a generalized fused lasso (GFL) approach to fitting contrast-based network meta-analysis (NMA) models. The GFL method penalizes all pairwise differences between treatment effects, resulting in the pooling of treatments that are not sufficiently different. This approach offers an intriguing avenue for potentially mitigating biases in treatment rankings and reducing sparsity in networks. To fit contrast-based NMA models within the GFL framework, we formulate the models as generalized least squares problems, where the precision matrix depends on the standard error in the data, the estimated between-study heterogeneity and the correlation between contrasts in multi-arm studies. By utilizing a Cholesky decomposition of the precision matrix, we linearly transform the data vector and design matrix to frame NMA within the GFL framework. We demonstrate how to construct the GFL penalty such that every pairwise difference is penalized similarly. The model is straightforward to implement in R via the "genlasso" package, and runs instantaneously, contrary to other regularization approaches that are Bayesian. A two-step GFL-NMA approach is recommended to obtain measures of uncertainty associated with the (pooled) relative treatment effects. Two simulation studies confirm the GFL approach's ability to pool treatments that have the same (or similar) effects while also revealing when incorrect pooling may occur, and its potential benefits against alternative methods. The novel GFL-NMA method is successfully applied to a real-world dataset on diabetes where the standard NMA model was not favored compared to the best-fitting GFL-NMA model with AICc selection of the tuning parameter ( .
期刊介绍:
The journal aims to influence practice in medicine and its associated sciences through the publication of papers on statistical and other quantitative methods. Papers will explain new methods and demonstrate their application, preferably through a substantive, real, motivating example or a comprehensive evaluation based on an illustrative example. Alternatively, papers will report on case-studies where creative use or technical generalizations of established methodology is directed towards a substantive application. Reviews of, and tutorials on, general topics relevant to the application of statistics to medicine will also be published. The main criteria for publication are appropriateness of the statistical methods to a particular medical problem and clarity of exposition. Papers with primarily mathematical content will be excluded. The journal aims to enhance communication between statisticians, clinicians and medical researchers.