Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 157–177

# A Likelihood Paradigm for Clinical Trials

• Zhiwei Zhang
• Bo Zhang
Article

## Abstract

Given the prominent role of clinical trials in evidence-based medicine, proper interpretation of clinical data as statistical evidence is not just a philosophical question but also has important practical implications. It has been recognized for some time that the likelihood paradigm, founded on the law of likelihood, provides an appropriate framework for representing and interpreting statistical evidence. As stated, the law of likelihood is limited to simple hypotheses and not applicable to composite hypotheses, despite the tremendous relevance of composite hypotheses in clinical trials and other applications. This article proposes a generalization of the law of likelihood for composite hypotheses, which helps expand the likelihood paradigm to cover clinical trials. The generalized law is developed in an axiomatic fashion, illustrated with real examples, and examined in an asymptotic analysis. Its implications are explored by making comparisons with common frequentist concepts, by drawing connections with Wald-type procedures, and by noting its utility for interpreting hypothesis tests as reduced data.

## Keywords

Approximate likelihood Law of likelihood Likelihood ratio Statistical evidence Support interval Support set

62A01 62P10

## References

1. Berger, J. O., and R. L. Wolpert. 1988. The likelihood principle, 2nd ed. Hayward, CA, Institute of Mathematical Statistics.
2. Berry, D. A. 2007. The difficult and ubiquitous problems of multiplicities. Pharm. Stat., 6, 155–160.
3. Bickel, D. R. 2008. The strength of statistical evidence for composite hypotheses with an application to multiple comparisons. COBRA Preprint Series, Article 49 (available online at http://biostats.bepress.com/cobra/ps/art49).
4. Bickel, D. R. 2011. A predictive approach to measuring the strength of statistical evidence for single and multiple comparisons. Can. J. Stat., 39, 610–631.
5. Blume, J. D. 2002. Likelihood methods for measuring statistical evidence. Stat. Med., 21, 2563–2599.
6. Blume, J. D. 2008. How often likelihood ratios are misleading in sequential trials. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods, 37, 1193–1206.
7. Blume, J. D., L. Su, R. M. Olveda, and S. T. McGarvey. 2007. Statistical evidence for GLM regression parameters: A robust likelihood approach. Stat. Med., 26, 2919–2936.
8. Boyles, R. A. 2008. The role of likelihood in interval estimation. Am. Stat., 62, 22–26.
9. Choi, L., B. Caffo, and C. Rohde. 2008. A survey of the likelihood approach to bioequivalence trials. Stat. Med., 27, 4874–4894.
10. Goodman, S. N. 2004. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. Part 1: The P value fallacy. Ann. Intern. Med., 130, 995–1004.
11. Hacking, I. 1965. Logic of statistical inference. New York, Cambridge University Press.
12. He, Y., W. Huang, and H. Liang. 2007. Axiomatic development of profile likelihoods as the strength of evidence for composite hypotheses. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods, 36, 2695–2706.
13. Korn, E. L., and B. Freidlin. 2006. The likelihood as statistical evidence in multiple comparisons in clinical trials: no free lunch. Biometrical J., 48, 1–10.
14. Owen, A. B. 2001. Empirical Likelihood. Boca Raton, FL, Chapman & Hall.
15. Qin, J., and J. Lawless. 1994. Empirical likelihood and general estimating equations. Ann. Stat., 22, 300–325.
16. Robins, J., and L. Wasserman. 2000. Conditioning, likelihood, and coherence: A review of some foundational concepts. J. Am. Sta. Assoc., 95, 1340–1346.
17. Rodary, C., C. Com-Nougue, and M. Tournade. 1989. How to establish equivalence between treatments: A one-sided trial in paediatric oncology. Stat. Med., 8, 593–598.
18. Royall, R. 1994. The elusive concept of statistical evidence. In Bayesian statistics 4, ed. J. M. Bernardo, J. O. Berger, A. P. Dawid, and A. F. M. Smith, 405–418. Oxford, UK, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
19. Royall, R. 1997. Statistical evidence: A likelihood paradigm. New York, Chapman & Hall.
20. Royall, R. 2000. On the probability of observing misleading statistical evidence. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 760–768.
21. Royall, R., and T.-S. Tsou. 2003. Interpreting statistical evidence by using imperfect models: Robust adjusted likelihood functions. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B, 65, 391–404.
22. Taper, M. L., and S. R. Lele. 2011. Evidence, evidence functions, and error probabilities. In Philosophy of statistics, ed. P. S. Bandyopadhyay and M. R. Forster, 513–532. Amsterdam, Elsevier.
23. Tsou, T.-S., and R. Royall. 1995. Robust likelihoods. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 90, 316–320.
24. van der Vaart, A. W. 1998. Asymptotic statistics. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
25. van der Vaart, A. W., and J. A. Wellner. 1996. Weak convergence and empirical processes with applications to statistics. New York, Springer-Verlag.
26. Wang, S.-J., and J. D. Blume. 2011. An evidential approach to non-inferiority clinical trials. Pharm. Stat., 10, 440–447.
27. Wellek, S. 2003. Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.
28. Wolpert, R. L. 2000. Comment on “On the probability of observing misleading statistical evidence” by R. Royall. J. Am. Sta. Assoc., 95, 771–772.Google Scholar
29. Zhang, Z. 2006. Non-inferiority testing with a variable margin. Biometrical J., 48, 948–965.
30. Zhang, Z. 2009a. Interpreting statistical evidence with empirical likelihood functions. Biometrical J., 51(4), 710–720.
31. Zhang, Z. 2009b. A law of likelihood for composite hypotheses. Unpublished manuscript. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0463.
32. Zhang, Z. 2010. Profile likelihood and incomplete data. Int. Stat. Rev., 78(1), 102–116.