agentsclimarketplace

Ml nmr methodology

Skill choxos/BiostatAgent/plugins/itc-modeling/skills/ml-nmr-methodology

Claude Code plugin marketplace for biostatistics in R — 30 agents, 17 commands, and 45 skills spanning Bayesian modeling (Stan/PyMC/JAGS), indirect treatment comparisons (NMA/MAIC/STC/ML-NMR), tidy R workflows, and clinical trial simulation.

Install
npx -y skills add choxos/BiostatAgent --skill ml-nmr-methodology

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 8 stars8 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Deep methodology knowledge for ML-NMR including IPD/AgD integration, population adjustment, numerical integration, and prediction to target populations. Use when conducting or reviewing ML-NMR analyses.

SKILL.md

9.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

ML-NMR Methodology

Comprehensive methodological guidance for conducting rigorous Multilevel Network Meta-Regression following NICE DSU guidance and multinma package documentation.

When to Use This Skill

  • Deciding whether ML-NMR is appropriate
  • Setting up integration points for AgD
  • Specifying priors and models
  • Understanding marginal vs conditional effects
  • Predicting to target populations
  • Reviewing ML-NMR code or results

When to Use ML-NMR

ML-NMR is Appropriate When:

  1. Network Structure

    • Multiple treatments form (partial) network
    • Some studies have IPD, others only AgD
    • Want to leverage all available evidence
  2. Population Differences

    • Effect modifiers differ across populations
    • Standard NMA transitivity violated
    • Need population-adjusted estimates
  3. Target Population

    • Want predictions for specific population
    • Different from any single trial population
    • Policy-relevant population definition

ML-NMR vs Alternatives

ScenarioRecommended Method
All AgD, similar populationsStandard NMA
All AgD, different populationsNMA meta-regression
IPD for one study, AgD for oneMAIC or STC
IPD + AgD networkML-NMR
Disconnected with IPDML-NMR (with assumptions)

Key Concepts

Individual-Level vs Study-Level

ML-NMR Models Both:
├── Individual-level (within IPD studies)
│   - Patient-level outcomes
│   - Patient-level covariates
│   - Exact covariate-outcome relationships
│
└── Study-level (for AgD studies)
    - Aggregate outcomes
    - Covariate summaries
    - Integration over covariate distribution

Population Adjustment

Problem: AgD studies provide aggregate summaries, but we need individual-level predictions.

Solution: Numerical integration over the AgD population's covariate distribution.

For AgD study:
Expected outcome = ∫ f(outcome | covariates, treatment) × p(covariates) d(covariates)

Where:
- f(): Individual-level outcome model (from IPD)
- p(): Covariate distribution in AgD population

Integration Points

What Are Integration Points?

Discrete approximation to the integral over AgD population:

# Specify covariate distribution
add_integration(
  network,
  age = distr(qnorm, mean = 62, sd = 10),
  sex = distr(qbern, prob = 0.55),
  n_int = 500
)

# Creates 500 "pseudo-individuals" sampled from
# the specified covariate distribution

Choosing Number of Integration Points

Complexityn_intDescription
Simple100-2001-2 covariates, linear effects
Moderate300-5002-3 covariates, typical use
Complex500-1000Many covariates, interactions
Very complex1000+Nonlinear effects, many variables

Best Practice: Test sensitivity to n_int by running with different values.

Specifying Distributions

# Continuous: Normal distribution
age = distr(qnorm, mean = 62, sd = 10)

# Binary: Bernoulli
sex = distr(qbern, prob = 0.55)

# Categorical: Discrete distribution
# May need special handling

# Correlated covariates: Copula methods
# More complex setup required

Model Specification

Regression Component

nma(
  network,
  regression = ~ age + sex + age:sex,  # Covariate effects
  ...
)

# Interprets as:
# Linear predictor = trt_effect + β_age × age + β_sex × sex + β_age:sex × age × sex

Effect Modifier vs Prognostic Factor

In ML-NMR regression formula:
├── Effect modifiers: Interact with treatment
│   - regression = ~ age
│   - Creates age × treatment interaction
│
└── Prognostic factors: Affect baseline risk only
    - Handled through study random effects
    - Or explicit prognostic regression

Prior Specification

nma(
  ...,
  prior_intercept = normal(0, 10),    # Baseline risk
  prior_trt = normal(0, 5),           # Treatment effects
  prior_reg = normal(0, 2),           # Regression coefficients
  prior_het = half_normal(1)          # Heterogeneity
)

# Considerations:
# - Scale depends on link function
# - Log-odds: 2-3 is large effect
# - Informative priors from Turner et al. for het

Marginal vs Conditional Effects

Conditional Effects

  • Effect at specific covariate values
  • "Effect for a 65-year-old male"
  • Directly from model coefficients

Marginal (Population-Averaged) Effects

  • Effect averaged over population
  • "Average effect in UK population"
  • Obtained via integration
# Predict to target population
target <- data.frame(
  age = seq(50, 80, 5),
  sex = 0.5  # 50% male
)

predictions <- predict(fit, newdata = target)

Why the Difference Matters

For non-collapsible effect measures (OR, HR):

  • Marginal effect ≠ Average of conditional effects
  • Must integrate properly over population
  • ML-NMR handles this correctly

Consistency Assessment

Node-Splitting in ML-NMR

# Fit node-split model
nodesplit_fit <- nma(
  network,
  consistency = "nodesplit",
  ...
)

# Check for direct vs indirect disagreement
summary(nodesplit_fit)

Interpretation with Population Adjustment

  • Inconsistency could be due to true treatment effect heterogeneity
  • Or due to population differences not captured
  • Node-splitting should be done after population adjustment

Treatment Rankings

Posterior Rank Probabilities

rank_probs <- posterior_rank_probs(fit)

# Returns probability matrix:
# P(treatment j has rank r)

Interpretation Cautions

Same as standard NMA:

  • Rankings have uncertainty
  • Small effect differences → large rank uncertainty
  • Consider clinical significance alongside ranks

Prediction to Target Population

Specifying Target Population

# Method 1: Point prediction
target <- data.frame(age = 62, sex = 0.5)

# Method 2: Distribution prediction
# Provide many points representing target distribution
target <- data.frame(
  age = rnorm(1000, 60, 12),
  sex = rbinom(1000, 1, 0.45)
)

Types of Predictions

# Relative effects (log scale)
predict(fit, type = "link")

# Relative effects (natural scale)
predict(fit, type = "response")

# Absolute outcomes
predict(fit, type = "response", baseline = ...)

Convergence Diagnostics

Essential Checks

# 1. Print summary (shows R-hat, ESS)
print(fit)

# 2. Trace plots
plot(fit, pars = "d")

# 3. R-hat should be < 1.05
# 4. ESS should be > 400 per parameter

Addressing Convergence Issues

  1. Increase iterations: More warmup/sampling
  2. Adjust adapt_delta: Higher (0.95, 0.99) for divergences
  3. Reparameterize: Different model specifications
  4. Informative priors: If posterior too diffuse
  5. Check data: Sparse comparisons cause issues

Reporting Requirements

Methods

  • Network structure description
  • IPD vs AgD studies identified
  • Covariate selection for adjustment
  • Integration point specification
  • Prior specification with justification
  • Target population definition
  • Convergence criteria

Results

  • Network diagram
  • Convergence diagnostics (R-hat, ESS)
  • Relative effects for all comparisons
  • Treatment rankings with uncertainty
  • Consistency assessment
  • Predictions to target population
  • Sensitivity analyses

Common Pitfalls

1. Insufficient Integration Points

  • Results may be unstable
  • Check sensitivity to n_int
  • Increase until results stabilize

2. Ignoring Convergence

  • Must check R-hat and ESS
  • Divergent transitions indicate problems
  • Don't trust results without convergence

3. Wrong Covariate Distributions

  • Must match AgD population
  • Extract from publications carefully
  • Consider correlation between covariates

4. Misinterpreting Marginal Effects

  • Non-collapsible measures need care
  • OR/HR: Marginal ≠ conditional
  • Use predict() for proper marginalization

5. Not Specifying Target Population

  • Default may not be policy-relevant
  • Explicitly define target
  • Sensitivity to target specification

Quick Reference Code

library(multinma)

# 1. Set up IPD studies
ipd_net <- set_ipd(ipd_data,
                   study = study, trt = treatment, r = response)

# 2. Set up AgD studies
agd_net <- set_agd_arm(agd_data,
                       study = study, trt = treatment,
                       r = responders, n = sampleSize)

# 3. Combine network
network <- combine_network(ipd_net, agd_net)

# 4. Add integration points
network <- add_integration(
  network,
  age = distr(qnorm, mean = age_mean, sd = age_sd),
  sex = distr(qbern, prob = sex_prop),
  n_int = 500
)

# 5. Fit ML-NMR
fit <- nma(
  network,
  trt_effects = "random",
  regression = ~ age + sex,
  prior_intercept = normal(0, 10),
  prior_trt = normal(0, 5),
  prior_reg = normal(0, 2),
  prior_het = half_normal(1),
  adapt_delta = 0.95,
  chains = 4,
  iter = 4000,
  warmup = 2000,
  seed = 12345
)

# 6. Check convergence
print(fit)

# 7. Relative effects
rel_eff <- relative_effects(fit)
plot(rel_eff)

# 8. Rankings
ranks <- posterior_rank_probs(fit)
plot(ranks)

# 9. Predict to target
target <- data.frame(age = 60, sex = 0.5)
pred <- predict(fit, newdata = target)

# 10. Node-splitting
nodesplit_fit <- nma(network, consistency = "nodesplit", ...)

Resources

  • NICE DSU TSD 18: Population-adjusted comparisons
  • Phillippo et al. (2020): ML-NMR methods paper
  • multinma package: https://dmphillippo.github.io/multinma/
  • Stan User's Guide (for MCMC diagnostics)

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.