Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
129 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
28 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

A unified Bayesian framework for interval hypothesis testing in clinical trials (2402.13890v1)

Published 21 Feb 2024 in stat.ME and stat.ML

Abstract: The American Statistical Association (ASA) statement on statistical significance and P-values \cite{wasserstein2016asa} cautioned statisticians against making scientific decisions solely on the basis of traditional P-values. The statement delineated key issues with P-values, including a lack of transparency, an inability to quantify evidence in support of the null hypothesis, and an inability to measure the size of an effect or the importance of a result. In this article, we demonstrate that the interval null hypothesis framework (instead of the point null hypothesis framework), when used in tandem with Bayes factor-based tests, is instrumental in circumnavigating the key issues of P-values. Further, we note that specifying prior densities for Bayes factors is challenging and has been a reason for criticism of Bayesian hypothesis testing in existing literature. We address this by adapting Bayes factors directly based on common test statistics. We demonstrate, through numerical experiments and real data examples, that the proposed Bayesian interval hypothesis testing procedures can be calibrated to ensure frequentist error control while retaining their inherent interpretability. Finally, we illustrate the improved flexibility and applicability of the proposed methods by providing coherent frameworks for competitive landscape analysis and end-to-end Bayesian hypothesis tests in the context of reporting clinical trial outcomes.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (35)
  1. Published on 01 September 2017, Issue Date: January 2018doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z
  2. Johnson VE. Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2013; 110(48): 19313–19317. Edited by Adrian E. Raftery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, and approved October 9, 2013 (received for review July 18, 2013)doi: 10.1073/pnas.1313476110
  3. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9
  4. Betensky RA. The p-Value Requires Context, Not a Threshold. The American Statistician 2019; 73(sup1): 115-117. doi: 10.1080/00031305.2018.1529624
  5. doi: 10.1080/00031305.2018.1537893
  6. doi: 10.1214/20-AOS2020
  7. Demidenko E. The p-Value You Can’t Buy. The American Statistician 2016; 70(1): 33-38. doi: 10.1080/00031305.2015.1069760
  8. Schuirmann DJ. Two one-sided tests procedure and confidence interval estimation for noncentrality parameters. Biometrics 1987; 43(3): 645–654.
  9. Meyners M. Equivalence tests – A review. Food Quality and Preference 2012; 26(2): 231-245. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.05.003
  10. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.01.010
  11. Cuzick J, Sasieni P. Interpreting the results of noninferiority trials—a review. British Journal of Cancer 2022; 127: 1755-1759. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01628-5
  12. Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes Factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1995; 90(430): 773–795.
  13. Jeffreys H. Theory of Probability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 3rd ed. 1961.
  14. Morey RD, Rouder JN. Bayes factor approaches for testing interval null hypotheses. Psychological Methods 2011; 16(4): 406–419.
  15. Advance online publicationdoi: 10.1080/01621459.2023.2176534
  16. Chakraborty A, Datta S. Differentially Private Bayesian Tests. 2024.
  17. Johnson VE. Bayes Factors Based on Test Statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology) 2005; 67(5): 689–701.
  18. Yuan Y, Johnson VE. BAYESIAN HYPOTHESIS TESTS USING NONPARAMETRIC STATISTICS. Statistica Sinica 2008; 18(3): 1185–1200.
  19. Chakraborty A. Bayesian Spike Train Inference via Non-Local Priors. 2023.
  20. Pramanik S, Johnson VE. Efficient alternatives for Bayesian hypothesis tests in psychology. Psychological methods 2022.
  21. Eli Lilly and Company . A Study of LY2605541 in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. 2018.
  22. doi: 10.2337/diacare.26.11.3080
  23. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine 1999; 18(20): 2693–2708.
  24. submitted: July 3, 2013.
  25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1326.2010.01257.x
  26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.12097
  27. submitted: November 25, 2014.
  28. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(13)70013-5
  29. doi: 10.1007/s40268-016-0134-z
  30. submitted: August 26, 2014.
  31. Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC . A Phase III Clinical Trial to Study the Safety and Efficacy of MK-1293 Compared to Lantus™ in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. 2018(NCT02059187). submitted: February 7, 2014.
  32. submitted: November 8, 2011.
  33. Johnson VE. A Bayesian Chi-2 test for goodness-of-fit. The Annals of Statistics 2004; 32(6): 2361 – 2384. doi: 10.1214/009053604000000616
  34. doi: 10.3390/e26010063
  35. Chakraborty A, Chakraborty A. Scalable Model-Based Gaussian Process Clustering. 2023.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.