ArticleStatistics in medicine2024
Collaborative inference for treatment effect with distributed data-sharing management in multicenter studies.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Privacy-enhancing sequential learning under heterogeneous selection bias in multi-site electronic health records data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Risk factors and predictive models for perioperative acute kidney injury in children: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Harnessing Dietary Tryptophan: Bridging the Gap Between Neurobiology and Psychiatry in Depression Management.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- A Review of Methods for Research Synthesis.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Collaborative Inference for Accelerated Failure Time Model Using Clinical Center-Level Summary Statistics.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Data sharing barriers present paramount challenges arising from multicenter clinical studies where multiple data sources are stored and managed in a distributed fashion at different local study sites. Merging such data sources into a common data storage for a centralized statistical analysis requires a data use agreement, which is often time-consuming. Data merging may become more burdensome when propensity score modeling is involved in the analysis because combining many confounding variables, and systematic incorporation of this additional modeling in a meta-analysis has not been thoroughly investigated in the literature. Motivated from a multicenter clinical trial of basal insulin treatment for reducing the risk of post-transplantation diabetes mellitus, we propose a new inference framework that avoids the merging of subject-level raw data from multiple sites at a centralized facility but needs only the sharing of summary statistics. Unlike the architecture of federated learning, the proposed collaborative inference does not need a center site to combine local results and thus enjoys maximal protection of data privacy and minimal sensitivity to unbalanced data distributions across data sources. We show theoretically and numerically that the new distributed inference approach has little loss of statistical power compared to the centralized method that requires merging the entire data. We present large-sample properties and algorithms for the proposed method. We illustrate its performance by simulation experiments and the motivating example on the differential average treatment effect of basal insulin to lower risk of diabetes among kidney-transplant patients compared to the standard-of-care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.