#### 3.5 ASMUS
ASMUS is a feature which guides the user of the Subgroup Explorer through the screening of tens of thousand of subgroups with the aim to find those which are worth pursuing.
The key of ASMUS is to focus on assessable subgroups only. This reduces the number of subgroups to be considered drastically.
A fuzzy logic approach is used to select subgroups which have a remarkable treatment effect and which provide reliably information.
An expert in pharmacology can then decide whether the subgroup defining factors explain the treatment effect reasonably.
The challenge to the user has been to find subgroups which are worth pursuing.
There was no feature, which guided the user through the process of finding worth pursuing subgroups.
The newly implemented feature ASMUS helps to find all worth pursuing subgroups semi-automatically.
Subgroup analyses are performed to assess the heterogeneity of treatment effects across different groups of patients. There are always subgroups with a treatment effect which differs from the study treatment effect. The fundamental question is whether this observed treatment effect is reproducible or an incidental finding.
This is a matter of the causal influence of the subgroup-defining factors. Theoretical knowledge or experience can provide evidence. Ultimately, only another clinical trial can answer the question.
This is neither a matter of the size of the treatment effect nor the number of patients in the subgroup. Consequently, statistical tests cannot answer the question.
Screening a data set from a clinical trial can only mean to identify subgroups that are worth pursuing in terms of reproducibility.
A subgroup is worth pursuing if and only if
The assessability of a subgroup is indispensable in a subgroup analysis.
If a subgroup is not assessable, its discovery is not helpful, no matter how big the treatment effect and how big the subgroup is.
Hence, ASMUS considers only those subgroups as worth pursuing which are assessable.
A subgroup is assessable iff it has good references for comparison.
A subgroup is a good reference for another subgroup if and only if it belongs to the same factorial context.
##### 3.5.1 Factorial Context
For a given subgroup, the factor level combinations of the subgroup defining factor(s) are the factorial context of that subgroup.
A factorial context is complete if
-
all its subgroups exist in the data set and they
-
all have a non-missing treatment-effect.
In all other cases the factorial context is incomplete. If a factorial context is complete, then its subgroups are assessable.
An incomplete factorial context causes problems, since the treatment effect for a subgroup is not evaluable if we can not see whether its value is driven one specific factor or the interaction of two or more factors.
To allow a more flexible definition on completeness of factorial contexts, we call/define an incomplete factorial context as pseudo-complete, if the following criterion are met:
-
the factorial context would be complete by removing one single level in one factor
-
we have at least a multi-factorial context (two or more factors)
-
the factor in which the level is removed contains at least 3 levels.
The following tables provide examples of the different completeness-definitions for
a factorial context with two factors (sex and age group).
Complete:
subgroup
|
sex
|
age
|
target variable
|
1
|
male
|
<65
|
1.7
|
2
|
male
|
65-75
|
1.3
|
3
|
male
|
=>75
|
2.1
|
4
|
female
|
<65
|
1.5
|
5
|
female
|
65-75
|
1.6
|
6
|
female
|
=>75
|
3.6
|
Table 3.5.1.1 Complete factorial context with factors sex and age.
Pseudo-complete:
subgroup
|
sex
|
age
|
target variable
|
1
|
male
|
<65
|
1.7
|
2
|
male
|
65-75
|
1.3
|
3
|
male
|
=>75
|
2.1
|
4
|
female
|
<65
|
1.5
|
5
|
female
|
65-75
|
1.6
|
6
|
female
|
=>75
|
NA
|
Table 3.5.1.2 Pseudo-complete factorial context with factors sex and age after removing level age >= 75.
Incomplete:
subgroup
|
sex
|
age
|
target variable
|
1
|
male
|
<65
|
1.7
|
2
|
male
|
65-75
|
NA
|
3
|
male
|
=>75
|
2.1
|
4
|
female
|
<65
|
1.5
|
5
|
female
|
65-75
|
1.6
|
6
|
female
|
=>75
|
NA
|
Table 3.5.1.3 Incomplete factorial context with factors sex and age.
This question whether a subgroup is remarkable can only be answered for the drug currently under development and in comparison to the study treatment effect. Medical knowledge is needed to answer the question.
Although the size of the treatment effect of a given subgroup does not say anything about the reproducibility, it makes sense to include it into the screening strategy since finding a reproducible but neglectable treatment effect is not useful.
To identify remarkable treatment effects it is difficult to define a crisp cut point between the remarkable and the non-remarkable treatment effect.
It is much easier to define two numbers, rem1 and rem2, such that treatment effects
less than a are truly not remarkable greater than rem2 are truly remarkable
between rem1 and rem2 are remarkable with a certain degree of truth.
ASMUS is based on this fuzzy logic approach utilizing a linear truth-function.
The provided information is reliable when the sizes of the subgroups of a factorial context play an important role, but this is not the only criterion. The relation of the treatment group sizes within the subgroups play role as well.
A big subgroup with drastically imbalanced treatment groups may not considered to provide less reliable information than a smaller subgroup with nearly balanced treatment groups.
However, ASMUS is based on the size of subgroups only for simplicity reasons.
Although the reliability of information does not say anything about the reproducibility of the treatment effect it makes sense to include it into the screening strategy.
Even if a treatment effect is remarkable and the subgroup-defining factors explain the treatment effect reasonably the subgroup is not worth pursuing because the reliability of the provided information is poor.
Again it is difficult to define a crisp cut point between subgroup sizes sufficiently big to provide reliable information and those which do not.
It is much easier to define two numbers, rel1 and rel2, such that subgroup sizes
less than rel1 are truly too small greater than rel2 are truly big enough
between rel1 and rel2 are big enough with a certain degree of truth.
The truth value for the remarkability of the treatment effect and the truth value for the reliability of the provided information are combined with a logical “and”.
From the many proposal, which can be found in the literature, to calculate a logical “and” in fuzzy logic (minimum, algebraic product, drastic product, etc. ), we selected the algebraic product because it is simple and convex.
The convexity is appreciated because a lower truth-value for the remarkability requires a compensation with a higher truth-value for the reliability and vice versa.
The central question is when do the subgroup-defining factors explain the treatment effect reasonably.
It can only be answered by experts in pharmacology.
So in ASMUS, the user selects whether the assessability is based on the
complete factorial context only or complete and pseudo-complete factorial contexts.
The user also specifies the numbers a and b for the remarkability and the reliability criterion.
For a given subgroup it is determined if it is assessable.
The truth values for the treatment effect and the size of the subgroup
are calculated and multiplied (algebraic product for a fuzzy logical “and”).
If the subgroup is assessable and the product of the truth values exceeds a user defined threshold the subgroup is proposed to be evaluated whether its subgroup defining factors explain the treatment effect reasonably.
The direction of remarkability can be changed via tickbox.
The multiplicity value requires a value between 0 and 1 and influence the steepness and shape of the curve.
When all settings have been made, the number of subgroups which are remarkable and reliable regarding the selection are displayed and the 'Continue'-button appears in green.
After clicking continue, the second page of ASMUS opens where the remarkable and reliable subgroups can be analysed in more detail.