Evaluating the performance of Bayesian cumulative logistic models in randomised controlled trials: a simulation study
Chris J. Selman, Katherine J. Lee, Steven Y.C. Tong, Mark Jones, Robert K. Mahar

TL;DR
This study compares the performance of different statistical models for ordinal outcomes in randomized trials, highlighting the robustness of partial proportional odds models when the proportional odds assumption is violated.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive simulation-based evaluation of PO, PPO, and logistic regression models, demonstrating their strengths and limitations under various conditions.
Findings
PO model performs best under true PO conditions.
PPO and logistic regression models are unbiased under non-PO scenarios.
Unconstrained PPO underperforms with sparse data.
Abstract
Background: The proportional odds (PO) model is the most common analytic method for ordinal outcomes in randomised controlled trials. While parameter estimates obtained under departures from PO can be interpreted as an average odds ratio, they can obscure differing treatment effects across the distribution of the ordinal categories. Extensions to the PO model exist and this work evaluates their performance under deviations to the PO assumption. Methods: We evaluated the bias, coverage and mean square error of four modeling approaches for ordinal outcomes via Monte Carlo simulation. Specifically, independent logistic regression models, the PO model, and constrained and unconstrained partial proportional odds (PPO) models were fit to simulated ordinal outcome data. The simulated data were designed to represent a hypothetical two-arm randomised trial under a range of scenarios.…
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.
