Bayesian sample sizes for exploratory clinical trials comparing multiple experimental treatments with a control
John Whitehead, Faye Cleary, Amanda Turner

TL;DR
This paper introduces a Bayesian method for determining sample sizes in exploratory clinical trials that compare multiple treatments to a control, balancing prior beliefs and statistical power to efficiently identify promising treatments.
Contribution
It develops a Bayesian sample size calculation approach for multi-treatment comparisons, incorporating prior information and providing a direct link to conventional power concepts.
Findings
Bayesian approach reduces required sample sizes compared to traditional methods.
Method ensures at least one promising treatment is identified with high confidence.
Illustrations demonstrate practical application and advantages over frequentist techniques.
Abstract
In this paper, a Bayesian approach is developed for simultaneously comparing multiple experimental treatments with a common control treatment in an exploratory clinical trial. The sample size is set to ensure that, at the end of the study, there will be at least one treatment for which the investigators have a strong belief that it is better than control, or else they have a strong belief that none of the experimental treatments are substantially better than control. This criterion bears a direct relationship with conventional frequentist power requirements, while allowing prior opinion to feature in the analysis with a consequent reduction in sample size. If it is concluded that at least one of the experimental treatments shows promise, then it is envisaged that one or more of these promising treatments will be developed further in a definitive phase III trial. The approach is…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
