1
Penalized designs of multi-response experiments
Valerii FedorovAcknowledgements: Yuehui Wu
GlaxoSmithKline, Research Statistics Unit
2
OutlineRI approach
Reminder
Model
Information, utility functions, criteria
Design
Analysis of scenarios
3
RI approach: recycling of ideas
4
¾ came from A&F, 1988
5
Twenty years ago
6
Thirty years ago
7
Observations and penaltyReminder
8
Likelihood and information matrixReminder
9
Cost constrained designReminder
10
Design transformReminder
11
Equivalence theoremReminder
12
Specific cases from 1988, A&F
13
Bayesian* and composite designs
Stage Conservative Optimistic
Design Use prior Use prior
Estimation No prior Use prior
*
14
First order algorithmReminder
15
Adaptive designReminder
16
Binary observationsModel
17
Two drugs: typical responsesModel
18
Probit modelModel
19
More about probit model can be found in:
Model
20
Diagram from Pearson’s paper
21
Linear predictorModel
In what follows θ = {-1.26, 2.0, 0.9, 14.8; -1.13, 0.94, 0.36, 4} , ρ = 0.5
22
Information Matrix for a Single Observationor What Can be Learned from One Patient
Information
23
2D Penalty functionPenalty = { Probability of efficacy} – 1 ∗ {Probability of no toxicity} – 1.
Model
24
Utility and optimality criterion
Utility (or what we want): Probability of efficacy without toxicity, i.e. p10(x)Distance from desirability point: δ (x*) All unknown parameters
Optimality criteria:Var {estimated p10(x)}Var {estimated max[p10(x)]} + Var {estimated location of max[p10(x)]} Var {estimated x*}Var {estimated θ }
Utility and optimality criterion
25
Utility - I
arg max p10(x,θ) ={ 0.18, 0.68 }
Utility and optimality criterion
26
Utility - IIUtility and optimality criterion
27
Design scenarios
91 subjects were assigned to three doses per drug in initial design (7 support points)Another 90 subjects to be assignedTotal sample size: 181
Analysis of scenarios
28
Penalized locally D-optimalAnalysis of scenarios
29
Penalized composite locally D-optimal
Initial design
Added design points
Analysis of scenarios
30
Design comparison for D-criterioninitial design included
Design type Information per patient
Penalty per patient
Information per penalty u.
Locally D-optimal 1 2.07 0.48
0.79
0.62
0.52
0.50
0.39
0.50
Penalized locally optimal 0.79 1
Penalized composite locally optimal 0.77 1.23
Penalized composite (median, 500) 0.70 1.36
Penalized adaptive (median, 500) 0.75 1.50
“Do your best” adaptive (median, 500) 0.46 1.19
Restricted “Uniform ” , 12 points 0.67 1.34
Analysis of scenarios
31
Simulation results (500 runs): the estimated best combination
Analysis of scenarios
Adaptive D-optimalComposite D-optimal
Do your best
Best dose
32
Simulation results (500 runs): the estimated best response
Composite D-adaptive Do your best
Analysis of scenarios
33
CONCLUSION
Recycling helps
34
References Atkinson, A.C. and Fedorov, V.V. (1988). The optimum design of experiments in the presence of uncontrolled variability and prior information. In Optimal Design and Analysis of Experiments. Eds. Dodge Y., Fedorov V.V. and Wynn H.P. New York: North-Holland. pp 327- 344.Box, G.E.P. and Hunter, W.G. (1963). Sequential design of experiments for
nonlinear models. In "Proceedings of IBM Scientic Computing Symposium (Statistics)". 113-137.Cook, D. and Fedorov, V. (1995). Constrained optimization of experimental design. Statistics 26: 129-178.Dragalin, V., Fedorov, V., and Wu, Y. (2006). Optimal Designs for BivariateProbit Model. GSK Technical Report 2006-01. http://www.biometrics.com/8D97129158B901878025714D00389BEB.htmlFedorov, V.V. and Hackl, P. (1997). Model-Oriented Design of Experiments. Lecture Notes in Statistics, pp.125. Springer.Ford, I., Titterington, D.M. and Wu, C.F.J. (1985). Inference and sequential design. Biometrika 72: 545-551.Hu, I. (1998). On sequential designs in nonlinear problems. Biometrika 85: 446-503.Hu, F. and Rosenberger, W. (2006), The theory of response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials, Wiley.Ying, Z. and Wu, C.F.J. (1997). An asymptotical theory of sequential designs based on maximum likelihood recursions. Statistica Sinica 7: 75-91.
35
Appendix
36
Estimation of the best dose with and without dichotomization I
Dichotomized Continuous
Model
37
Estimation of the best dose with and without dichotomization II
Model
38
2D binaryResponders without toxicity -
Responders with toxicity
Non-responders without toxicity
Non-responders with toxicity
Model