arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2508.06288

Comparing Methods of Expert Elicitation for Treatment Effect or Borrowing Parameters in Standard and Rare Disease Clinical Trials: A Systematic Mapping Study

Laura M. Morgan·James M. S. Wason·Kevin J. Wilson·Nina Wilson
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Expert elicitation is an invaluable tool for gaining insights into the degree of clinical knowledge surrounding parameters of interest when designing, or supplementing trial data when analysing, a clinical trial. Elicitation is considered particularly useful in cases where limited data are available, such as in rare diseases. This study aims to identify methods of expert elicitation and aggregation for treatment effect or borrowing parameters that are used in the design or analysis stages of clinical trials. A comprehensive review of statistical and non-statistical literature was conducted by database searching, and reference list screening of older, relevant literature reviews. The search took place in October 2024 and identified 366 potentially relevant publications. Of these, 126 were selected for full-text review based on review of titles and abstracts, and 41 publications were deemed eligible for inclusion after a full reading. For each included publication, data were extracted on methods of elicitation and aggregation, the types of parameters elicited, the resulting distributions, the number of experts used, and any training provided to experts. Publication characteristics such as contribution type, journal type, and application to the rare disease setting was also noted. A narrative description of the selected publications was produced, detailing 6 unique methods for expert elicitation and 10 unique methods for aggregation. We discuss the most popular methods used across standard and rare disease clinical trials, along with any strengths and limitations. Overall, there is no formal framework for expert elicitation in clinical trials, and more general methods are applied with little consideration into the specific context and trial designs. This review identifies the methodological gaps in current practice, providing a foundation for future development.

Explore related subjects

stat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Laura M. Morgan, James M. S. Wason, Kevin J. Wilson, Nina Wilson. 2025-08-08. Comparing Methods of Expert Elicitation for Treatment Effect or Borrowing Parameters in Standard and Rare Disease Clinical Trials: A Systematic Mapping Study. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06288

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Online activity prediction via generalized Indian buffet process models

Online A/B tests are the standard tool for data-driven decision-making at scale. Among the design choices with the largest impact on statistical power is the triggering mechanism: how many users to expose and for how long. This often requires forecasting user engagement, i.e., whether enough users will trigger, and when a target participation level will be reached, from limited pilot data. We introduce a Bayesian nonparametric model for predicting both new-user counts and total triggers, accommodating the heavy-tailed engagement patterns typical of web experiments. All predictive quantities can be computed without intensive numerical procedures such as Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) or variational inference. We evaluate on three public datasets (over 450 public benchmark evaluations) and a proprietary benchmark drawn from 759 production A/B tests comprising 1,774 arms. Across the benchmark analyses, our models are competitive and frequently improve accuracy in forecasting new users, total triggers, and time to reach a target sample size compared with state-of-the-art competitors, especially when only a few pilot days are observed.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

Spending Scarce Confirmatory PET Measurements: Target-Aligned Validation in A4/LEARN

Anti-amyloid therapies and blood-based biomarkers are changing Alzheimer disease workups into a two-stage measurement workflow: screen broadly with cheaper information, then spend scarce confirmatory amyloid measurements where they support the decision that will be reported. Amyloid positron-emission tomography (PET) remains one such protocol measurement for amyloid burden, but PET slots, trial budgets, and payer-facing evidence packages are finite. This paper asks a deliberately operational question: when is simple transparent PET validation enough, and when is a fitted residual-uncertainty score worth the added complexity? For a weighted protocol target, the first-order value of validating subject i is the product of target influence and residual protocol uncertainty. Generic uncertainty sampling uses only the second factor and can spend PET measurements on subjects that are hard to predict but weak for the scientific, clinical, or commercial claim. We apply this rule to the A4/LEARN PET archive, treating observed PET as a design laboratory for scarce-confirmation studies. For the primary APOE4 carrier versus non-carrier contrast in Centiloid 24-or-higher PET positivity, simple APOE4-balanced validation recovers nearly all of the target-specific gain: at PET budget 200, the confidence-interval width ratio relative to random validation is 0.923 for APOE4 balancing and 0.914 for target-specific scoring, while generic uncertainty sampling is 0.980. Other targets behave differently: target-specific scoring gives larger gains for an age-slope analysis and for cutoff-indexed PET positivity. The practical message is simple: spend scarce protocol measurements according to the claim being validated, not only according to prediction uncertainty.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

Identifying Damage Pathways Linking Sequence Composition to Storage Failure in DNA Data Storage via High-Dimensional Mediation Analysis

DNA data storage offers extraordinary information density and long-term durability, but its reliability is limited by sequence-dependent errors introduced during synthesis and accumulated during storage. It remains unclear how sequence composition is associated with storage failure through specific molecular damage components. We develop a high-dimensional semiparametric mediation framework for survival outcomes. GC content is treated as the exposure, a high-dimensional baseline damage spectrum (a vector of per-read damage counts stratified by trinucleotide context and error type) as the mediator, and storage-quality failure as the outcome. Nonlinear covariate effects in both the mediator and survival models are approximated using deep neural networks. A three-step procedure combining product-of-coefficients screening, Smoothly Clipped Absolute Deviation (SCAD) penalized estimation, and joint significance testing is developed for mediator selection and inference. Applied to an aging experiment on electrochemically synthesized DNA, the method identifies 14 significant mediators, all corresponding to single-base deletions, with estimated mediated effects concentrated in trinucleotide contexts ending in C. These results reveal deletion-type damage as a major pathway linking sequence composition to reduced archival reliability and suggest candidate sequence features for future optimization and error-control strategies. The proposed framework thus offers a mechanism-oriented statistical approach for understanding and improving the reliability of DNA data storage.

stat.AP↗