Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.00671

How to optimize dynamic borrowing in basket trials - A utility-based framework and results of a comparison study

Lukas D Sauer·Alexander Ritz·Meinhard Kieser
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Basket trials are clinical trials in which one treatment is investigated in multiple subpopulations within a single trial. The subpopulations are called strata in the following. Stratified cohorts are typical but not limited to early oncological trials, where targeted therapies can be investigated in different strata defined by tumor tissue. In terms of statistical methodology, the stratification of the trial can be leveraged using information borrowing. The idea is that the strata will be analyzed separately if they respond differently to treatment, but that a stratum may share information from another if their response rates are similar. This can increase power while keeping type-I error inflation moderate. The borrowing methods can be tuned with respect to possible outcome scenarios. In this paper, we provide a framework for tuning basket trials: The compromise between power and type-I error rate is defined by a utility function which is then optimized using optimization algorithms. We investigated this framework by performing a pre-specified comparison study. Part I of the study compared optimization algorithms in terms of reliability and efficiency, part II compared the statistical performance of utility functions in simulated scenarios. This study shows how targeting different utility functions based on measures such as local power in each stratum or the number of correct decisions leads to different borrowing behavior of the optimized design. Furthermore, we discuss a mathematical counterexample which shows that no uniformly most powerful (UMP) test exists for basket trials, thus showing the limitations of basket trials. While information borrowing may result in power gains for some scenarios, there is no design which is optimal for all possible scenarios. Hence, a transparent optimization procedure is crucial when planning basket trials.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEstat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Lukas D Sauer, Alexander Ritz, Meinhard Kieser. 2026-08-01. How to optimize dynamic borrowing in basket trials - A utility-based framework and results of a comparison study. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00671

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bias-Correction for Privacy-Protected Spatial Autoregressive Models with Application to Restaurant Network Analysis

Spatial autoregressive (SAR) models and their extensions are important tools for studying network effects. However, with an increasing emphasis on data privacy, data providers often implement protection measures that render standard SAR models inapplicable. In this study, we introduce a privacy-protected SAR model that incorporates noise into both the response and covariates to meet privacy requirements. With noise present in both components, the traditional quasi-maximum likelihood estimator becomes difficult to compute because the likelihood function cannot be directly formulated. To bypass this hurdle, we begin with a pseudo-likelihood approach, initially omitting the noise in the covariates. A Newton-Raphson algorithm is then applied to compute the estimator; however, the estimator is biased. To address this, we propose a bias-corrected Newton-Raphson-type algorithm that simultaneously accounts for noise in both the response and covariates. We further show, under appropriate regularity conditions, that the resulting estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal. To further enhance computational efficiency, we also develop a bias-corrected least squares estimator. Several extensions are discussed, and the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods is evaluated through extensive simulations. We apply the proposed methodology to restaurant transaction data from a third-party payment platform. Our method identifies a statistically significant competitive network effect among restaurants and further reveals meaningful restaurant-customer interaction patterns.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

A variational framework for modal estimation

Multivariate mode estimation arises in many statistical problems such as inverse problems, multimodal sampling, and density-based clustering, but becomes challenging in moderate to high dimensions, especially when the underlying density is not directly evaluable. We introduce GERVE (Gibbs-measure Entropy-Regularized Variational Estimation), a sample-based method for estimating multivariate modes by approximating Gibbs distributions directly from samples, without estimating or evaluating the density. GERVE uses Gaussian-mixture variational annealing and natural-gradient optimization, producing a mixture concentrated in high-density regions whose component responsibilities also provide a clustering of the observations. We prove theoretical guarantees in two regimes: as the Gibbs temperature goes to zero, the optimal variational mixture concentrates around the global modes of the population density; at fixed positive temperature, we prove existence, consistency, and asymptotic normality of empirical maximizers and propose a bootstrap procedure for uncertainty quantification. Simulations and a real-data experiment show that GERVE accurately recovers modes and produces meaningful clusters.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Objective Model Prior Probabilities in Variable Selection

For many years it was routine to use equal model prior probabilities in Bayesian model uncertainty analysis. At least twenty years ago it became clear that this was problematic, leading to support of much too large models in the increasingly huge model spaces being considered in genomics and other fields. A popular replacement was to adopt a suggestion of Harold Jeffreys for the variable selection problem in which a total of $k$ possible variables are being considered for inclusion in the model: give the collection of all models containing $d$ variables ($d = 0, . . . , k$) prior probability $1/(k + 1)$ and then divide this prior probability equally among the models in the collection. Many other choices of model prior probabilities that impose severe parsimony have also been introduced. We begin by reviewing the problems with using equal model prior probabilities and then discuss some serious problems with the Jeffreys choice. Finally, we introduce and study a number of objective alternative choices of model prior probabilities, from both numerical and theoretical perspectives.

stat.ME↗