PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M E Rozell

Publications and source records attributed to M E Rozell.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Projection from previous studies: a Bayesian and frequentist compromise.

We present methods that use the results of a previous study to predict the outcome of a specified comparative trial in which each subject's outcome is categorized dichotomously (e.g., response or no response). The methods can be generalized to other two-sample cases for which power can be calculated (e.g., exponential survival), and to one-sample cases such as demonstrating a minimal response rate or demonstrating superiority to a historic control. Bayesian methods are used on the results of the preliminary study to obtain a posterior distribution representing the state of knowledge of the parameters of interest. This distribution provides the probability that the experimental regimen is superior to the standard by any particular amount. The probability that a future study will demonstrate the superiority of the experimental treatment is obtained by using the posterior distribution to average the power of the test over the parameter space.

Bayes Theorem↗

Direct analysis of quantal radiation response data.

A direct analysis is proposed for quantal (all-or-nothing) responses to fractionated radiation and endpoint-dilution assays of cell survival. As opposed to two-step methods such as the reciprocal-dose technique, in which ED50 values are first estimated for different fractionation schemes and then fit (as reciprocals) against dose per fraction, all raw data are included in a single maximum-likelihood treatment. The method accommodates variations such as short-interval fractionation regimens designed to determine tissue repair kinetics, tissue response to continuous exposures, and data obtained using endpoint-dilution assays of cell survival after fractionated doses. Monte-Carlo techniques were used to compare the direct and reciprocal-dose methods for analysis of small-scale and large-scale studies of response to fractionated doses. Both methods tended toward biased estimates in the analysis of the small-scale (3 fraction numbers) studies. The alpha/beta ratios showed less scatter when estimated by the direct method. Most important, the 95 per cent confidence intervals determined by the direct method were more appropriate than those determined by reciprocal-dose analysis, for which 18 per cent (small-scale study) or 8 per cent (large-scale study) of the confidence intervals did not include the 'true' value of alpha/beta.

Animals↗