Back

Arm-specific versus total-sample fragility quotients in large vessel vasculitis trials

Gillette, J. J.; Lu, M.; Tsybulnik, D. Y.; Heston, T. F.

2025-12-03 epidemiology
10.64898/2025.12.01.25341404 medRxiv
Show abstract

The fragility quotient normalizes the fragility index by total sample size but can obscure arm-specific fragility when trial arms are unequal, since the fragility index systematically alters outcomes in only one arm. We defined the modified-arm fragility quotient as the fragility index divided by the size of the arm in which outcomes are toggled. We compared it to the fragility quotient using three approaches: (1) re-analysis of 29 categorical outcomes from 18 large-vessel vasculitis trials (allocation ratios 1.0-2.0), (2) R grid simulation across 1:1 to 4:1 allocation ratios with sample sizes 60-240 (90,000 simulations), and (3) Python Monte Carlo simulation with 3,000 replications across 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 allocations. In balanced 1:1 trials, the modified-arm fragility quotient equaled twice the fragility quotient exactly, as predicted. The proportion of trials in which the modified-arm fragility quotient exceeded twice the fragility quotient increased systematically with allocation imbalance: 0% (1:1), 81% (2:1), 93% (3:1), and 95% (4:1). In the R simulation, mean divergence between the modified-arm fragility quotient and twice the value of the fragility quotient increased from 0.00 (1:1) to 0.10 (4:1). Empirical data showed a strong correlation (r = 0.98) between the two quotients, but divergence increased in the 25 unbalanced allocation trials. The ratio of the modified-arm fragility quotient to twice the value of the fragility quotient scaled linearly with allocation ratio, with mean values of 1.0 (1:1), 1.36 (2:1), 1.91 (3:1), and 2.41 (4:1). These findings show that the modified-arm fragility quotient and total-sample fragility quotient convey equivalent information under equal allocation. In contrast, under unequal randomization, the total-sample fragility quotient can mischaracterize trial fragility due to dilution from the larger, unmodified arm, whereas the modified-arm fragility quotient avoids this bias by restricting normalization to the modified arm.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.