Back

Impact of subgroup classification accuracy on detecting heterogeneous treatment effects in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: A simulation study

Hamilton, F. W.; Ong, S. Y.; Swets, M.; Russell, C. D.; Underwood, J.

2026-07-20 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.07.17.26357924 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) is clinically heterogeneous. Potential heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) have recently been identified through analysis of patient subgroups, identified using routine clinical variables.However, the impact of misclassifying patients into these groups is unclear, and practical strategies to improve HTE detection remain uncertain. Methods We performed a simulation study using published data from selected randomised trials and observational studies in SAB. We assessed the impact of varying classification accuracy (70%-100%) on i) power, ii) type I error, and iii) bias in post-hoc analyses of HTE. We then evaluated two strategies to improve performance: enrichment designs, in which only patients predicted to belong to a target subgroup are randomised, and the use of ordinal rather than binary outcomes. Results Even with perfect classification, post-hoc detection of heterogeneous treatment effects remained highly conditional on subgroup prevalence, baseline mortality, and effect size. One subgroup was detectable at moderate sample sizes; however, power was inadequate for all other subgroups even with sample sizes of 20,000. Decreasing classification accuracy reduced power, increased type I error, and introduced bias. Enrichment marginally improved power. Ordinal outcomes substantially improved performance when they matched the treatment-effect structure, but were worse when they did not. Conclusions Detecting HTE in SAB is challenging, but not uniformly infeasible. Feasibility depends on the interaction between subgroup frequency, baseline risk, classifier performance, and outcome choice. To advance stratified medicine in SAB, research should prioritize robust classifiers, outcome measures matched to the expected mechanism and pattern of treatment effect, and trial designs that acknowledge uncertainty in subgroup prevalence and treatment-effect structure.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.7%
2
American Journal of Epidemiology
67 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.5%
3
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.5%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.6%
5
Epidemiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
6
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 34%
3.5%
7
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 10%
3.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
Clinical Infectious Diseases
235 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.1%
9
Clinical Trials
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
10
BMC Medical Research Methodology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
11
BMJ
51 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
12
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
13
Statistics in Medicine
40 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
14
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.7%
16
Biometrics
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
17
Systematic Reviews
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
18
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
202 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
19
Value in Health
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
20
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
21
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
22
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 66%
1.1%
23
International Journal of Epidemiology
88 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
24
The Lancet Microbe
44 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
25
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
142 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
26
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
27
Research Synthesis Methods
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
28
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
29
British Journal of General Practice
23 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
30
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%