In the Interim...

A Statistician reads JAMA


Listen Later

Dr. Scott Berry applies a statistician’s review of a random trial result published in JAMA – the FAIR-HF2 clinical trial.  Interrogating the frequentist paradigm and the focus on the binary outcome of the primary hypothesis test. He scrutinizes the Hochberg multiplicity adjustment, challenges the prevailing disregard for accumulated scientific evidence, and contrasts the limitations of black/white view of clinical trial of over 1000 patients and 6 years of enrollment. A contrast is made to what a potential Bayesian approach, grounded in practical trial interpretation and evidence integration would look like. The episode argues how current norms, created by dogmatic statistical views, in clinical trial analysis can obscure or perhaps mislead from meaningful findings and limit the utility of costly, complex studies.

Key Highlights

  • FAIR-HF2 randomized 1,105 patients with heart failure and iron deficiency to intravenous ferric carboxymaltose or placebo across 70 sites, with three pre-specified co-primary analyses.
  • The study relied on the Hochberg procedure to control family-wise error across analyses: (1) time to first cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization; (2) total heart failure hospitalizations; (3) time to first event in a highly iron-deficient subgroup.
  • Results showed a favorable hazard ratio (0.79) and a p-value below 0.05 for primary composite 1, but statistical significance was nullified under Hochberg multiplicity criteria as other endpoints failed threshold requirements.
  • Berry challenges the reduction of trial outcomes to discrete “significant” or “not significant” designations—critiquing the scientific and statistical culture that ignores gradient evidence in favor of only black-and-white outcomes.
  • He details the likelihood principle and Bayesian analysis as superior frameworks, quantifying a 98% posterior probability of benefit; he contextualizes findings with prior evidence from the HEART-FID, IRONMAN, and AFFIRM-AHF trials and published meta-analyses—arguing that isolated, negative conclusions defy cumulative data.
  • The discussion extends to the inefficiency of fixed trial designs, the missed value in adaptive methodologies, and the inefficacy of requiring full-scale repeat trials all analyzed in isolation, when evidence already points strongly to a beneficial effect.
...more
View all episodesView all episodes
Download on the App Store

In the Interim...By Berry

  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5

5

10 ratings


More shows like In the Interim...

View all
TED Talks Daily by TED

TED Talks Daily

11,184 Listeners

Data Skeptic by Kyle Polich

Data Skeptic

478 Listeners

Political Fix by Financial Times

Political Fix

146 Listeners

Super Data Science: ML & AI Podcast with Jon Krohn by Jon Krohn

Super Data Science: ML & AI Podcast with Jon Krohn

301 Listeners

The Daily by The New York Times

The Daily

112,376 Listeners

Up First from NPR by NPR

Up First from NPR

56,444 Listeners

Learning Bayesian Statistics by Alexandre Andorra

Learning Bayesian Statistics

68 Listeners

Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques by Matt Abrahams, Think Fast Talk Smart

Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques

808 Listeners

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg by All-In Podcast, LLC

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

9,799 Listeners

JAMAevidence JAMA Guide to Statistics and Methods by JAMA Network

JAMAevidence JAMA Guide to Statistics and Methods

19 Listeners

Learning English For Work by BBC News

Learning English For Work

50 Listeners