A Two-Stage Method for Extending Inferences from a Collection of Trials

Nicole Schnitzler; Eloise Kaizar

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2309.03693

A Two-Stage Method for Extending Inferences from a Collection of Trials

Nicole Schnitzler·Eloise Kaizar

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

When considering the effect a treatment will cause in a population of interest, we often look to evidence from randomized controlled trials. In settings where multiple trials on a treatment are available, we may wish to synthesize the trials' participant data to obtain causally interpretable estimates of the average treatment effect in a specific target population. Traditional meta-analytic approaches to synthesizing data from multiple studies estimate the average effect among the studies. The resulting estimate is often not causally interpretable in any population, much less a particular population of interest, due to heterogeneity in the effect of treatment across studies. Inspired by traditional two-stage meta-analytic methods, as well as methods for extending inferences from a single study, we propose a two-stage approach to extending inferences from a collection of randomized controlled trials that can be used to obtain causally interpretable estimates of treatment effects in a target population when there is between-study heterogeneity in conditional average treatment effects. We first introduce a collection of assumptions under which the target population's average treatment effect is identifiable when conditional average treatment effects are heterogeneous across studies. We then introduce an estimator that utilizes weighting in two stages, taking a weighted average of study-specific estimates of the treatment effect in the target population. The performance of our proposed approach is assessed through simulation studies and an application to a collection of trials studying an online therapy treatment for symptoms of pediatric traumatic brain injury.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Nicole Schnitzler, Eloise Kaizar. 2023-09-07. A Two-Stage Method for Extending Inferences from a Collection of Trials. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.03693

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗