JSM 2004 - Toronto

Abstract #301647

This is the preliminary program for the 2004 Joint Statistical Meetings in Toronto, Canada. Currently included in this program is the "technical" program, schedule of invited, topic contributed, regular contributed and poster sessions; Continuing Education courses (August 7-10, 2004); and Committee and Business Meetings. This on-line program will be updated frequently to reflect the most current revisions.

To View the Program:
You may choose to view all activities of the program or just parts of it at any one time. All activities are arranged by date and time.

The views expressed here are those of the individual authors
and not necessarily those of the ASA or its board, officers, or staff.

Back to main JSM 2004 Program page
Activity Number: 221
Type: Contributed
Date/Time: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 : 10:30 AM to 12:20 PM
Sponsor: Biopharmaceutical Section
Abstract - #301647
Title: Comparison of Treatment Effects Using Empirical Bayes Method
Author(s): Wei Shen*+ and Chaofeng Liu and Jun Xie
Companies: Eli Lilly and Company and Eli Lilly and Company and Purdue University
Address: Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN, 46285,
Keywords: empirical Bayes ; borrowing information ; clinical trial ; treatment comparison
Abstract:

Bayes and empirical Bayes (EB) methods are widely used in medical research with applications ranging from disease-mapping to risk assessment. The beauty of the Bayesian approach is its ability to structure complicated models, inferential goals, and analyses. By formalizing the relationship among components and "borrowing information" among them, Bayes and EB methods can produce more valid, efficient and informative statistical evaluations than those based on traditional methods. Consider comparison of treatment effects in clinical trials, where data arise from a two-stage compound sampling model. We applied EB methods to estimate individual treatment effect within each group and compare treatment effects between groups. Simulation studies were performed to evaluate the performance of the EB approach as well as standard procedures. The results demonstrated that the EB method was more accurate. We applied this method to clinical trial data evaluating new therapies.

  • The address information is for the authors that have a + after their name.
  • Authors who are presenting talks have a * after their name.

Back to the full JSM 2004 program

JSM 2004 For information, contact jsm@amstat.org or phone (888) 231-3473. If you have questions about the Continuing Education program, please contact the Education Department.
Revised March 2004