Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

Bayesian additional evidence for decision making under small sample uncertainty

Authors: Arjun Sondhi, Brian Segal, Jeremy Snider, Olivier Humblet, Margaret McCusker

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Statistical inference based on small datasets, commonly found in precision oncology, is subject to low power and high uncertainty. In these settings, drawing strong conclusions about future research utility is difficult when using standard inferential measures. It is therefore important to better quantify the uncertainty associated with both significant and non-significant results based on small sample sizes.

Methods

We developed a new method, Bayesian Additional Evidence (BAE), that determines (1) how much additional supportive evidence is needed for a non-significant result to reach Bayesian posterior credibility, or (2) how much additional opposing evidence is needed to render a significant result non-credible. Although based in Bayesian analysis, a prior distribution is not needed; instead, the tipping point output is compared to reasonable effect ranges to draw conclusions. We demonstrate our approach in a comparative effectiveness analysis comparing two treatments in a real world biomarker-defined cohort, and provide guidelines for how to apply BAE in practice.

Results

Our initial comparative effectiveness analysis results in a hazard ratio of 0.31 with 95% confidence interval (0.09, 1.1). Applying BAE to this result yields a tipping point of 0.54; thus, an observed hazard ratio of 0.54 or smaller in a replication study would result in posterior credibility for the treatment association. Given that effect sizes in this range are not extreme, and that supportive evidence exists from a similar published study, we conclude that this problem is worthy of further research.

Conclusions

Our proposed method provides a useful framework for interpreting analytic results from small datasets. This can assist researchers in deciding how to interpret and continue their investigations based on an initial analysis that has high uncertainty. Although we illustrated its use in estimating parameters based on time-to-event outcomes, BAE easily applies to any normally-distributed estimator, such as those used for analyzing binary or continuous outcomes.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
9.
go back to reference Birnbaum B, Nussbaum N, Seidl-Rathkopf K, et al. Model-assisted cohort selection with bias analysis for generating large-scale cohorts from the EHR for oncology research. ArXiv. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09765. Birnbaum B, Nussbaum N, Seidl-Rathkopf K, et al. Model-assisted cohort selection with bias analysis for generating large-scale cohorts from the EHR for oncology research. ArXiv. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09765.
11.
go back to reference Upton, G. “Fisher's Exact Test.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), vol. 155, no. 3, 1992, pp. 395–402. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2982890. Accessed 3 Aug 2021. Upton, G. “Fisher's Exact Test.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), vol. 155, no. 3, 1992, pp. 395–402. JSTOR, www.​jstor.​org/​stable/​2982890. Accessed 3 Aug 2021.
Metadata
Title
Bayesian additional evidence for decision making under small sample uncertainty
Authors
Arjun Sondhi
Brian Segal
Jeremy Snider
Olivier Humblet
Margaret McCusker
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01432-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2021 Go to the issue