This shows you the differences between the selected revision and the current version of the page.

additional:chapter02 2018/12/25 17:15 | additional:chapter02 2018/12/25 17:17 current | ||
---|---|---|---|

Line 13: | Line 13: | ||

Inclusion criteria were considered for a randomized trial on adjuvant radio-iodine therapy in differentiated thyroid cancer ((Dragoiescu C, Hoekstra OS, Kuik DJ, et al. Feasibility of a randomized trial on adjuvant radio-iodine therapy in differentiated thyroid cancer. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2003;58(4):451-5)). Randomized trials in this area were considered impossible due to anticipated formidable sample sizes in a disease with an overall excellent prognosis. The authors analyzed outcomes of 342 patients using Cox proportional hazards analysis. A model was created that distinguished risk categories of recurrence using commonly available baseline variables (modeling results in: {{additional:Table 2 extra.pdf|Table extra}}).\\ | Inclusion criteria were considered for a randomized trial on adjuvant radio-iodine therapy in differentiated thyroid cancer ((Dragoiescu C, Hoekstra OS, Kuik DJ, et al. Feasibility of a randomized trial on adjuvant radio-iodine therapy in differentiated thyroid cancer. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2003;58(4):451-5)). Randomized trials in this area were considered impossible due to anticipated formidable sample sizes in a disease with an overall excellent prognosis. The authors analyzed outcomes of 342 patients using Cox proportional hazards analysis. A model was created that distinguished risk categories of recurrence using commonly available baseline variables (modeling results in: {{additional:Table 2 extra.pdf|Table extra}}).\\ | ||

A subset of patients was defined as those with a score of 3 or more (for example age 60+, score 60/20=3). These patients had a substantial risk for relapse (30–40%) and could be eligible for a randomized trial assessing the impact of high-dose therapy. Assuming a clinically relevant effect of 30% reduction of relapses, 290 patients would have to be entered in either arm (α 0•05, power 80%). The authors conclude that even though a randomized trial on this issue will be difficult to design and conduct, sample size is not the main problem. | A subset of patients was defined as those with a score of 3 or more (for example age 60+, score 60/20=3). These patients had a substantial risk for relapse (30–40%) and could be eligible for a randomized trial assessing the impact of high-dose therapy. Assuming a clinically relevant effect of 30% reduction of relapses, 290 patients would have to be entered in either arm (α 0•05, power 80%). The authors conclude that even though a randomized trial on this issue will be difficult to design and conduct, sample size is not the main problem. | ||

+ | |||

Line 26: | Line 27: | ||

I commented as [[https://andrewgelman.com/2018/03/15/need-16-times-sample-size-estimate-interaction-estimate-main-effect/#comment-731924|follows]]: \\ | I commented as [[https://andrewgelman.com/2018/03/15/need-16-times-sample-size-estimate-interaction-estimate-main-effect/#comment-731924|follows]]: \\ | ||

**Did anyone really simulate the case study as suggested? Admittedly, estimates of effect sizes are key; and these impact on the estimated SE in a model, correct?** \\ | **Did anyone really simulate the case study as suggested? Admittedly, estimates of effect sizes are key; and these impact on the estimated SE in a model, correct?** \\ | ||

- | Under the Null, main effect has SE 0.63; interaction has SE of 1.26, with N=1000, sigma 10. | + | Under the Null, main effect has **SE 0.63**; interaction has **SE of 1.26**, with N=1000, sigma 10. |

With the given example, main effect 2.8*sigma; for x2== -.5, 2.1*sigma, and for x2== .5, 3.5*sigma. \\ This is the implication of the interaction being half the size of the main effect (1.4; -.7 and +.7 effect). \\ | With the given example, main effect 2.8*sigma; for x2== -.5, 2.1*sigma, and for x2== .5, 3.5*sigma. \\ This is the implication of the interaction being half the size of the main effect (1.4; -.7 and +.7 effect). \\ | ||

This results is 3 interesting findings: \\ | This results is 3 interesting findings: \\ | ||

- | - SE of main effect is estimated larger (as 0.70) | + | - SE of main effect is estimated larger (as **0.70**) |

- | - SE of main effect is estimated as 0.66 if we adjust for x2 | + | - SE of main effect is estimated as **0.66** if we adjust for x2 |

- | - SE of interaction is estimated as 1.26. | + | - SE of interaction is estimated correctly as **1.26**. |

\\ | \\ | ||

My reflections: | My reflections: | ||

- | * The only correct model is the model with interaction; and there the SE is identical to what was derived under the Null (SE 1.26). | + | * The only correct model is the model with interaction; and there the SE is identical to what was derived under the Null (**SE 1.26**). |

- | * In practice, we will start with the main effect model, and some variance is explained by adjusting for other covariates that are associated with the outcome. This is indeed what we observed for x2, even if x2 is interacting with x1. So, this confirms the [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2727470|recommendation]] to include covariates that are associated with the outcome, more than searching for subgroup effects. | + | * **In practice**, we will start with the main effect model, and some variance is explained by adjusting for other covariates that are associated with the outcome. This is indeed what we observed for x2, even if x2 is interacting with x1. So, this confirms the [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2727470|recommendation]] to include covariates that are associated with the outcome, more than searching for subgroup effects. |

* The inclusion of prognostic covariates is [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9620808|beneficial]] in linear models as well as in generalized linear models such as [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15196615|logistic]] or [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16275011|Cox]] regression, for example for mortality after an [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10783203|acute MI]]: | * The inclusion of prognostic covariates is [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9620808|beneficial]] in linear models as well as in generalized linear models such as [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15196615|logistic]] or [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16275011|Cox]] regression, for example for mortality after an [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10783203|acute MI]]: | ||

\\ | \\ |