proxies…

Posted on Sunday 22 September 2013

When epidemiologists talk about bias, they have a jargon they clearly understand and use it in discussions. One of their terms is "publication bias" and I was thinking about it, trying to get it straight what things they were including in that category. I had run across a usage that didn’t make intuitive sense. But in thinking about it, I got diverted by the word publication itself [such mental wanderings are both the pleasure and burden of aging]. I hadn’t thought of it, but it literally means – something that makes things public. I found myself sketching out a crude Venn Diagram on the back of an envelope and prettified it below on the computer for publication:
Obviously it’s hardly comprehensive, but it suited my needs. As a physician seeing a patient with a complaint of some kind of symptoms, I’m in a position of looking for the information I know or can find that we can bring to bear on the problem at hand. Obviously, Diagnosis is important – some way of conceptualizing the problem to access what is known from others with the same problem/disease. But by definition, a Diagnosis is a proxy for the problem of this patient. Without a Diagnosis, every patient is something new. The downside of even a correct diagnosis is that it simplifies the specific person’s problem – a dilemma of major note in psychiatry [but I check my tendency for diversion here and press ahead]. And in thinking about what might help this person, some medication might come to mind, and I’m now in the neighborhood of clinical trials.

If a Diagnosis is a proxy [stand-in] for my patient, the Subjects in a clinical trial are a collective proxy for the Diagnosis – other people with the same Diagnosis. There are some things I ought to know about those subjects. Where did they come from? What were their motives in being in the trial? How was the Diagnosis made? Here’s another temptation to wander [exploring all these questions], but I’m going to pass for a reason. I figure my interest and the interest of the people doing the study are congruent. Even the marketing department of the most profit seeking pharmaceutical company wants the subjects to have the Diagnosis their drug targets. If they don’t, the study is going to be a bust. So there’s no big disconnect here. PHARMA and I are in sync.

The next step in the process is gathering the Data – the study itself. And there are some rules, lots of rules, about how a drug trial proceeds. Before starting, there’s a Protocol defining how the study will be done, including: what measurement instruments will be used to collect the Data: what outcome variables will be assessed; and what criteria will define success or failure. The subjects are assigned to placebo and one or more treatment groups by some neutral algorithm. The investigators, the raters, and the subjects are blind to the group assignment. In the process, the Data becomes a proxy for the Subjects, converting the Subjects’ responses into tables and tables of information. This proxy thing really is a lot like those nested Russian dolls. This process is heavily regulated and my patient’s interests are still congruent with the trial’s sponsor’s. How did it come out? Was it efficacious? What were the adverse effects? We’re all at least close to being on the same page before the trial’s blind is broken.

In the last several years, I’ve wandered through a lot of these clinical trials, mostly to do with psychiatric drugs. The problems and misbehaviors have become the stuff of legend already, and we’re still close to the starting gate in terms of what needs to be known. It’s obvious that the problematic link in this chain of proxies is in the resulting Publication [see – I made it back around] – the thing that makes the whole thing public. The Publication [journal article] is the proxy for the Data – the end of a long sequence of proxies that started back with my patient and the clinical problem on the table in my office.

Five years ago, I didn’t know that was a problem. I’m a voracious reader, but my area of practice pointed to a different literature. But I don’t think most of my colleagues who weren’t a part of all the sheenanigans knew it either. We had all counted on the integrity of the Journals and the Authors to certify that step in the chain. We had anonymous peer reviewers to go over articles in depth for us. But that has all changed. People have tried lots of fixes in recent years: a war on ghost authorship; demanding to know the funding source; insisting on conflict of interest information. I expect those things have helped some, but the problems remain. They tell us when to be skeptical, but not the real results. And they haven’t solved the problem of the sea of unpublished negative studies. We’ve increasingly looked to independent meta-analyses, but they’re hard to do and hard to fund. In addition, meta-analysis lags way behind clinical usage. And meta-analyses are prey to the same kind of problems as the articles themselves [eg a biased meta-analysis of biased analyses – plenty of examples].

A year ago, I was obsessing about how to plug the holes, inventing things to do that would make the Publications what they should be – accurate proxies for the Data. I had something of a knot in my stomach because everything I thought of meant heavily regulating our Academic Journals like the clinical trial process is regulated, and that seemed absurd, like something important would be lost. About that time, GSK was finally induced to put their data for Paxil Study 329 on-line. My analysis was crude, several Excel Spreadsheets and more time than I’d like to admit copying numbers into them by hand. But, in spite of being a crude shot with few tools, it was easy to see in a solid way that everything we thought about that study was true – it was a negative study. The Adverse Events weren’t right either. And the problem wasn’t in the Protocol, or the conduct of the trial, in the Data. It was in the Publication – the thing that made it public. That publication was not a proxy for the Data.

The solution is easier than I thought. AllTrials, RIAT, EMA data transparency. The real Publication is the Data as it stands when the blind is broken. That Anonymized Data is the solution. So if someone questions an article, they can take a look and see if the Publication is a true proxy for the Data itself. There are plenty of people around who will do just that, and I’m the least talented of the lot. It will be good to give our many talented scientists either in training or with a lull in their own work something to learn from. It’s the "re" in re-search and the fight that can’t be lost. There’s a long chain from my patient and I looking at a medical/psychiatric problem to an article in a medical journal with lots of proxies in that chain. And this is the link that can easily be repaired by the public·a·tion of the raw data. It should never have been allowed to be so weak in the first place…

Appendix: A Primer if you haven’t seen it:
  1.  
    Annonymous
    September 22, 2013 | 7:43 PM
     

    I’m not sure if others are having this problem, but after appendix: a primer if you haven’t seen it:

    I just see a blank.

  2.  
    Annonymous
    September 22, 2013 | 7:53 PM
     

    My, bad I was viewing on something that didn’t bring up the TED video. Can see it now.

  3.  
    September 22, 2013 | 9:19 PM
     

    Everyone — sign this petition calling on Richard Gonzalez, the CEO of AbbVie to drop his legal action against the EMA’s policy of open access to clinical trial data. The petition is here
    http://chn.ge/13clTyF

    or in Spanish, French, German, Han and Hindi on Rxisk here
    http://wp.me/p2FaK9-Rf

    [the above from Rxisk.org]

    Please pass this along.

  4.  
    September 22, 2013 | 11:51 PM
     

    I also just see a blank after the Appendix line. Which Ted Talk is it?

  5.  
    Annonymous
    September 23, 2013 | 12:46 PM
     

    PsychPractice,
    Here is the link to Ben Goldacre’s “Battling Bad Science”:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html

  6.  
    wiley
    September 23, 2013 | 2:55 PM
     

    Anyone who has ever been at the mercy of publicly paid mental health professionals has probably seen the effects of working with professionals who don’t have access to the latest of anything. The Rosenham study is behind a paywall. I’m of the opinion that it;s also important for the general public to have access to studies and papers that address the reasoning behind decisions and perspectives in the field of psychiatry.

  7.  
    a-non
    September 23, 2013 | 3:06 PM
     
  8.  
    a-non
    September 23, 2013 | 6:57 PM
     

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.