Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40064632›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of biostatistics2025

Prognostic adjustment with efficient estimators to unbiasedly leverage historical data in randomized trials.

Lauren D Liao, Emilie Højbjerre-Frandsen, Alan E Hubbard, Alejandro Schuler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of biostatistics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Enhancing early Alzheimer's disease clinical trials through prognostic score covariate adjustment.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  2. COADVISE: covariate adjustment with variable selection in randomized controlled trials.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. AAdvances in neural information processing systems · 2025
    Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Lauren D LiaoDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA.
Emilie Højbjerre-FrandsenBiostatistics Methods and Outreach, Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark.
Alan E HubbardDivision of Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Alejandro SchulerDivision of Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a cornerstone of comparative effectiveness, they typically have much smaller sample size than observational studies due to financial and ethical considerations. Therefore there is interest in using plentiful historical data (either observational data or prior trials) to reduce trial sizes. Previous estimators developed for this purpose rely on unrealistic assumptions, without which the added data can bias the treatment effect estimate. Recent work proposed an alternative method (prognostic covariate adjustment) that imposes no additional assumptions and increases efficiency in trial analyses. The idea is to use historical data to learn a prognostic model: a regression of the outcome onto the covariates. The predictions from this model, generated from the RCT subjects' baseline variables, are then used as a covariate in a linear regression analysis of the trial data. In this work, we extend prognostic adjustment to trial analyses with nonparametric efficient estimators, which are more powerful than linear regression. We provide theory that explains why prognostic adjustment improves small-sample point estimation and inference without any possibility of bias. Simulations corroborate the theory: efficient estimators using prognostic adjustment compared to without provides greater power (i.e., smaller standard errors) when the trial is small. Population shifts between historical and trial data attenuate benefits but do not introduce bias. We showcase our estimator using clinical trial data provided by Novo Nordisk A/S that evaluates insulin therapy for individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBiasComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansLinear ModelsPrognosiscausal inferencediabeteshistorical dataprognostic scorerandomized trials

Identifiers

PMID40064632
PMCPMC12247788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.