Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38733304›Full record

ArticleMultivariate behavioral research

Bayesian Multivariate Logistic Regression for Superiority and Inferiority Decision-Making under Observable Treatment Heterogeneity.

Xynthia Kavelaars, Joris Mulder, Maurits Kaptein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Multivariate behavioral research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Xynthia KavelaarsDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University.ORCID 0000-0003-1600-3153
Joris MulderDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University.
Maurits KapteinEindhoven University of Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The effects of treatments may differ between persons with different characteristics. Addressing such treatment heterogeneity is crucial to investigate whether patients with specific characteristics are likely to benefit from a new treatment. The current paper presents a novel Bayesian method for superiority decision-making in the context of randomized controlled trials with multivariate binary responses and heterogeneous treatment effects. The framework is based on three elements: a) Bayesian multivariate logistic regression analysis with a Pólya-Gamma expansion; b) a transformation procedure to transfer obtained regression coefficients to a more intuitive multivariate probability scale (i.e., success probabilities and the differences between them); and c) a compatible decision procedure for treatment comparison with prespecified decision error rates. Procedures for a priori sample size estimation under a non-informative prior distribution are included. A numerical evaluation demonstrated that decisions based on a priori sample size estimation resulted in anticipated error rates among the trial population as well as subpopulations. Further, average and conditional treatment effect parameters could be estimated unbiasedly when the sample was large enough. Illustration with the International Stroke Trial dataset revealed a trend toward heterogeneous effects among stroke patients: Something that would have remained undetected when analyses were limited to average treatment effects.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremDecision MakingHumansLogistic ModelsMultivariate AnalysisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample SizeStrokeBayesian analysisBayesian multivariate logistic regressionmultiple dependent variablesPólya-Gammasubgroup analysistreatment heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID38733304
PMCPMC11548885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.