Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for population selection based on predictive/posterior probabilities in getSimulationEnrichmentMeans/Rates/Survival #30

Closed
wants to merge 34 commits into from

Conversation

xinzhn
Copy link

@xinzhn xinzhn commented Mar 20, 2024

I am wondering if it would be possible to add an additional option (e.g, userDefined) for the argument effectMeasure in getSimulationEnrichmentMeans/Rates/Survival, to allow a user defined function based on effect measures other than effectEstimate and testStatistic for selectPopulationsFunction. Examples for such alternatives are population-specific predictive probabilities and subgroup-specific posterior probabilities1. This might be implemented by providing additional arguments for the customized function selectPopulationsFunction to facilitate the calculation for both type of probabilities.

Just a thought for consideration: it may be convenient to borrow some arguments from calcSubjectsFunction (customized function for sample size re-calculation), but to provide for populations as well as subgroups. To be specific, we may need

  • thetaH1, overallEffects, and stDevH1 for continuous endpoints.
  • piTreatmentH1, piControlH1, overallRatesTreatment, and overallRatesControl for binary endpoints.
  • thetaH1 and overallEffects for survival endpoints.

Footnotes

  1. Brannath, W., Zuber, E., Branson, M., Bretz, F., Gallo, P., Posch, M., and Racine-Poon, A. (2009), “Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology,” Statistics in Medicine, 28, 1445–1463.

@xinzhn xinzhn requested a review from fpahlke March 20, 2024 01:07
@fpahlke
Copy link
Member

fpahlke commented Mar 28, 2024

Relocated to issue [#32] since it didn't include any code changes, making the issues section more appropriate.

@fpahlke fpahlke closed this Mar 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants