5
$\begingroup$

Apologies for a long post. I believe the answer of my questions involve basic statistics though I am reading it in the context of two-stage randomization design. The questions appear in the unbiasedness section. The other two sections (model framwork and estimator) only describe the relevant things in two-stage randomization design.

Definition: In a two-stage randomization design, patients are initially randomized to an initial treatment and then depending upon their response and consent, are further randomized to a maintenance treatment.

Model Framework in two-stage randomization design: Let treatment $A$, at levels $A_1$ and $A_2$, and treatment $B$, at levels $B_1$ and $B_2$, be the initial and maintenance treatments, respectively. In the two-stage trial, patients are randomized initially to one of the $A$ treatment levels. If a patient achieves remission and consent to further participation, he is then randomized to a level of $B$.

An objective of the study is to estimate the treatment policy $A_jB_k$ $j,k=1,2$, which we define as "treat with $A_j$ followed by $B_k$ if remission and consent".

Assume that each subject $i$ has an associated set of random variables $(R_{1i},R_{2i},T_{11i},T_{12i},T_{21i},T_{22i}),$ where $R_{1i}$ is the remission/consent status that $i$ would achieve were $i$ assigned to one of the policies $A_1B_k,$ $k=1,2,$ and similarly for $R_{2i}$. Implicit is the assumption that potential remission/consent status is a function only of the $A$ treatment level for a given policy and not on the subsequent $B$ treatment that the policy would dictate. The $T_{jki},$ $j,k=1,2$, represent the potential survival times $i$ would achieve if assigned to policy $A_jB_k$.

Suppose $X_i$ is the $A$ treatment assignment indicator, $X_i=j-1$ if $i$ is randomized to $A_j$, so that

$$X_i= \begin{cases} 0, & \text{if $i$ randomized to $A_1$} \\ 1, & \text{if $i$ randomized to $A_2$} \end{cases}.$$

The observed remission/consent status $R_i=R_{1i}(1-X_i)+R_{2i}X_{i}.$

$$R_i= \begin{cases} 0, & \text{if no remission or consent} \\ 1, & \text{if no remission and consent} \end{cases}.$$

Let $Z_i$ be the $B$ assignment indicator and defined only if $R_i=1$,

$$Z_i= \begin{cases} 0, & \text{if $i$th patient get remission/consent and randomized to $B_1$} \\ 1, & \text{if $i$th patient get remission/consent and randomized to $B_2$} \end{cases}.$$

Let $C_i$ be the time to censoring. $C_i$ is conditionally independent of $(R_i,R_iZ_i,T_{j1i},T_{j2i})$ given $X_i=j-1, j=1,2$.

$\Delta_i=I(T_i\le C_i)$ and $V_i=\min (T_i,C_i)$. Let the $B$ randomization probability is $\pi_{Z_j}$.

Consider $A_1B_1$. Ideally, if all subjects were assigned to $A_1B_1$ and there were no censoring, then $V_i = T_i = T_{lli}$, and the natural estimator for $F_{1l}(t)$ is $n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}I(V_i\le t)$. With censoring and randomization to $B$ contingent on remission/consent status, only a subset of the n patients have an observed (uncensored) survival time and have actual treatment consistent with the policy $A_1B_1$.

Let $Q_{1i}=1-R_i+(1-\pi_Z)^{-1}R_i(1-Z_i)$. In the cases where $i$'s treatment is consistent with $A_1B_1$, $Q_{1i}$ acts as a weight. Nonremitters consistent with $A_1B_1$ represent themselves and hence receive a weight of one, while if i achieves remission and consents, then $i$ represents $(1-\pi_Z)^{-1}$ remitting/consenting subjects who could have potentially been assigned to $B_1$. With $Q_{2i}=1-R_i+\pi_Z^{-1}R_i Z_i$, an analogous argument may be made for policy $A_1B_2$.

Estimator: These considerations motivate the estimator

$$\hat F_{1k}(t)=n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\Delta_i Q_{ki}}{\hat K(V_i)}I(V_i\le t),\ldots (1)$$ for $k=1,2,$ where $\hat K(t)=\prod_{u\le t}\frac{Y(u)-dN^c(u)}{Y(u)}$ is the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the censoring survivor curve, with $N^c(u)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}I(V_i\le u, \Delta_i=0)$ and $Y(u)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}I(V_i\ge u)$.

Unbiasedness: To show $\hat F_{1k}(t)$ is unbiased estimator of $F_{1k}(t)$, the authors 1 then proceed as follows:

$\mathbb E[\frac{\Delta_i Q_{1i}}{K(V_i)}I(V_i\le t)]$

$\color{blue}{\text{[over which random variable this expectation is? Is it $\mathbb E_V(.)$ or}}$ $\color{blue}{\text{$\mathbb E_R(.)$ or $\mathbb E_Z(.)$ or anything else?]}}$

$=\mathbb E[\frac{I(T_{11i}<C_i) Q_{1i}}{K(T_{11i})}I(T_{11i}\le t)]$

$=\mathbb E[\frac{I(T_{11i}\le t) Q_{1i}}{K(T_{11i})} \mathbb E\{ I(T_{11i}<C_i)|R_i,Z_i,T_{11i}\}]$
$\color{blue}{\text{[over which random variables the 1st and 2nd expectations are?]}}$

$=\mathbb E[\frac{I(T_{11i}\le t) Q_{1i}}{K(T_{11i})} K(T_{11i})]$ $\color{blue}{\text{[How $\mathbb E\{ I(T_{11i}<C_i)|R_i,Z_i,T_{11i}\}=K(T_{11i})$?]}}$

$=\mathbb E[I(T_{11i}\le t) Q_{1i}]\color{blue}{\text{[over which random variable this single expectation is?]}}$

$=\mathbb E[\mathbb E\{I(T_{11i}\le t) Q_{1i}|R_i,T_{11i}\}]$ $\color{blue}{\text{[over which random variables the 1st and 2nd expectations are?]}}$

$=\mathbb E\{I(T_{11i}\le t)\mathbb E(Q_{1i}|R_i,T_{11i})\}$

$=F_{11(t)},$

which follows by noting that $\mathbb E(Q_{1i}|R_i,T_{11i})\}=1-R_i+(1-\pi_Z)^{-1}\mathbb E\{R_i(1-Z_i)|R_i,T_{11i}\}=1$ from considering the cases $R_i=0$ and $R_i=1$ in turn.

Another question: does $\mathbb E[\frac{\Delta_i Q_{1i}}{K(V_i)}I(V_i\le t)]=F_{1k}(t)$ imply $\mathbb E[\hat F_{1k}(t)]=\mathbb E[n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\Delta_i Q_{ki}}{\hat K(V_i)}I(V_i\le t)]=F_{1k}(t)$?

$\color{purple}{\text{Thanks a lot for your attention.}}$


1 Lunceford, J. K., Davidian, M., & Tsiatis, A. A. (2002). Estimation of Survival Distributions of Treatment Policies in Two‐Stage Randomization Designs in Clinical Trials. Biometrics, 58(1), 48-57.

$\endgroup$
1
+100
$\begingroup$

This question contains a lot of background material, but most of it is not relevant for answering the questions you pose.

This is a two stage trial. The initial treatment $A$ has two levels $A_1$ and $A_2$. However, as explained in the paper, patients randomized to $A_1$ and $A_2$ form two independent samples, so I'm going to restrict (as in the paper) to patients randomized to $A_1$. How are the data for such a patient modelled? Well, in the paper the data for such a patient are generated from an IID realisation of the set of variables $(R,Z,T_1,T_2,C)$, where $R$ is an indicator for successful continuation to the second stage, $Z$ is an indicator for which second stage treatment is applied, $T_1,T_2$ are the potential survival times under the two potential second stage treatments, and $C$ is a censoring time which is independent of the other variables. All the quantities in your equations are functions of the set of variables $(R,Z,T_1,T_2,C)$ (NB I'm omitting the $i$ subscripts here which link variables to specific patients.).

In $\mathbb E[\frac{\Delta_i Q_{1i}}{K(V_i)}I(V_i\le t)]$ no variable is singled out as one over which the expectation is being taken. This usually means that the expectation is over the joint distribution of the variables $(R,Z,T_1,T_2,C)$. See this answer for a good explanation of the precise meaning of this. The same applies to your other questions about expectations - they're all expectations over the joint distribution of all variables involved.

There are also some conditional expectations e.g. $\mathbb E\{ I(T_{11i}<C_i)|R_i,Z_i,T_{11i}\}=K(T_{11i})$. How does this work? Intuitively, we think of any variable we condition on as being constant. In this case $T_{11i}$ is regarded as constant, but $C_i$ is independent of the variables on which we are conditioning (so is unaffected by the conditioning), so the conditional expectation evaluates to $\mathbb E(I(t_{11i}<C_i))=\mathbb P(C_i>t_{11i})=K(t_{11i})$ where $t_{11i}$ is the value of $T_{11i}$ which we're thinking of as constant. (More rigorously: see this answer.)

Here's a simple example of what's going on with the conditional expectation. Suppose $X$ and $Y$ are continuous IID random variables with cdf $F$. By symmetry we know that $P(X>Y)=\frac{1}{2}$. However this can also be calculated by conditioning. In fact $P(X>Y)=\mathbb E(I(X>Y))=\mathbb E(\mathbb E(I(X>Y)|Y))$. In the conditional expectation we think of $Y$ as constant so we just integrate over $X$ to get $1-F(Y)$. Hence $\mathbb E(\mathbb E(I(X>Y)|Y))$ reduces to $\mathbb E(1-F(Y))$. Since $F(Y)$ is uniform on $[0,1]$ this evaluates to $\frac{1}{2}$.

As for the last question, linearity of expectation implies that $\mathbb E[n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\Delta_i Q_{ki}}{ K(V_i)}I(V_i\le t)]=F_{1k}(t)$. However, I don't think you can easily replace $K$ by its estimator $\hat K$ in this - which is why they don't try to do this in the paper. Still, what they've shown suggests that $\hat F_{1k}(t)$ is a useful estimator.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If $R_i,Z_i,T_{11i}$ are condition on, they become constant. Then how in $\mathbb E[\frac{I(T_{11i}\le t) Q_{1i}}{K(T_{11i})} \mathbb E\{ I(T_{11i}<C_i)|R_i,Z_i,T_{11i}\}]$ , expectation is on over the joint $(R,Z,T_1,T_2,C)$? $\endgroup$ – user 31466 Nov 25 '17 at 4:32
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, my wording could have been better. We regard $R_i,Z_i,T_{11i}$ as constant but only for the purposes of calculating the conditional expectation. What's happening here is that in $\mathbb E\{ I(T_{11i}<C_i)|R_i,Z_i,T_{11i}\}$ we are integrating over $C_i$, then in $\mathbb E[\frac{I(T_{11i}\le t) Q_{1i}}{K(T_{11i})} \mathbb E\{ I(T_{11i}<C_i)|R_i,Z_i,T_{11i}\}]$ we integrate over the remaining variables. $\endgroup$ – S. Catterall Reinstate Monica Nov 25 '17 at 9:28
  • $\begingroup$ I've added another example of this kind of use of conditional expectations - see edited answer. $\endgroup$ – S. Catterall Reinstate Monica Nov 25 '17 at 9:55
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for adding the explanation. And a big thanks for finding out the questions from huge background. $\endgroup$ – user 31466 Nov 25 '17 at 10:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.