Date: 2026-02-16

# Deriving Endpoints from Imputed Data

#### 2026-02-16

# 1 Introduction

Once the rbmi pipeline has been run and imputed datasets are available, the same imputed data can be reused to analyse derived endpoints without re-running the computationally expensive `draws()` and `impute()` steps. This is particularly useful for binary responder endpoints, where the response is defined by whether a subject’s outcome crosses a pre-specified threshold.

This vignette demonstrates how to define binary responder endpoints from imputed continuous data and analyse them using rbmi’s `analyse()` / `pool()` machinery via rbmiUtils helper functions. Two types of responder definitions are covered:

1. Threshold-based responder – using the pre-derived `CRIT1FLN` column (CHG > 3) already present in the imputed data.
2. Clinical cutoff responder – deriving a new binary variable from the continuous `CHG` column using a higher threshold (CHG > 5), demonstrating the flexibility of imputed data reuse.

For the full rbmi workflow including `draws()`, `impute()`, and continuous ANCOVA analysis, see the pipeline vignette. This vignette assumes familiarity with rbmi core concepts (draws, impute, analyse, pool).

# 2 Prerequisites and Setup

We need rbmi for the analysis/pool infrastructure, rbmiUtils for the analysis helpers and reporting functions, and dplyr for data manipulation.

    library(rbmi)
    library(rbmiUtils)
    library(dplyr)

Next, we load the pre-built `ADMI` dataset bundled with rbmiUtils. This dataset contains 100 imputed copies of a simulated two-arm clinical trial, with continuous change-from-baseline outcomes (`CHG`) and a pre-derived binary responder variable (`CRIT1FLN`, defined as `CHG > 3`).

    data("ADMI", package = "rbmiUtils")

Before analysis, we convert the key grouping columns to factors. Factor levels control the ordering of treatment arms and visits, so it is important to set them explicitly.

    ADMI <- ADMI |>
      mutate(
        TRT = factor(TRT, levels = c("Placebo", "Drug A")),
        USUBJID = factor(USUBJID),
        AVISIT = factor(AVISIT),
        STRATA = factor(STRATA),
        REGION = factor(REGION)
      )

We also define the analysis variables for the binary responder endpoint. The outcome is `CRIT1FLN` (the numeric 0/1 responder flag), and we adjust for baseline, stratification, and region.

    vars_binary <- set_vars(
      subjid = "USUBJID",
      visit = "AVISIT",
      group = "TRT",
      outcome = "CRIT1FLN",
      covariates = c("BASE", "STRATA", "REGION")
    )

Finally, we specify the method object. This must match the imputation method originally used to create the imputed datasets – here, Bayesian MI with 100 samples.

    method <- method_bayes(
      n_samples = 100,
      control = control_bayes(warmup = 200, thin = 2)
    )

# 3 Threshold-Based Responder (CHG > 3)

The `ADMI` dataset already contains the `CRIT1FLN` column, which flags subjects as responders (`1`) if their change from baseline exceeds 3, and non-responders (`0`) otherwise. We can verify this:

> Interpreting the results: In this simulated dataset, positive CHG values represent worsening (an increase in symptom score). Therefore CHG > 3 defines “worsening responders” – subjects whose symptoms deteriorated by more than 3 points. A lower responder rate for Drug A compared to Placebo indicates that fewer patients on the active treatment experienced clinically meaningful worsening, which is evidence of drug efficacy.

    # The responder criterion is pre-derived
    ADMI |>
      distinct(CRIT) |>
      pull(CRIT)
    #> [1] "CHG > 3"
    #> attr(,"label")
    #> [1] "Responder criteria (definition)"

## 3.1 Analyse

We use `analyse_mi_data()` with `gcomp_responder_multi()` as the analysis function. This applies g-computation via logistic regression at each visit, estimating covariate-adjusted marginal treatment effects using the method of Ge et al. (implemented in the beeca package).

    ana_obj <- analyse_mi_data(
      data = ADMI,
      vars = vars_binary,
      method = method,
      fun = gcomp_responder_multi,
      reference_levels = "Placebo"
    )

## 3.2 Pool

Pool the per-imputation results using Rubin’s rules:

    pool_obj <- pool(ana_obj)

## 3.3 Results

The `tidy_pool_obj()` function converts the pool object into a tidy tibble with clearly labelled columns for estimates, standard errors, confidence intervals, and p-values.

    tidy_pool_obj(pool_obj)
    #> # A tibble: 6 × 10
    #>   parameter  description visit parameter_type lsm_type      est      se      lci
    #>   <chr>      <chr>       <chr> <chr>          <chr>       <dbl>   <dbl>    <dbl>
    #> 1 trt_Drug … Treatment … Week… trt            <NA>     -3.08e-2 1.15e-2 -0.0534
    #> 2 lsm_Drug … Least Squa… Week… lsm            Drug A    7.79e-5 7.85e-4 -0.00146
    #> 3 lsm_Place… Least Squa… Week… lsm            Placebo   3.09e-2 1.15e-2  0.00843
    #> 4 trt_Drug … Treatment … Week… trt            <NA>     -9.57e-2 2.10e-2 -0.137
    #> 5 lsm_Drug … Least Squa… Week… lsm            Drug A    7.27e-3 5.04e-3 -0.00262
    #> 6 lsm_Place… Least Squa… Week… lsm            Placebo   1.03e-1 2.06e-2  0.0627
    #> # ℹ 2 more variables: uci <dbl>, pval <dbl>

The efficacy table presents the results in a regulatory-style format:

    efficacy_table(
      pool_obj,
      title = "Responder Analysis: CHG > 3",
      subtitle = "G-computation with Marginal Effects (Ge et al.)",
      arm_labels = c(ref = "Placebo", alt = "Drug A")
    )

Responder Analysis: CHG > 3
G-computation with Marginal Effects (Ge et al.)
| Estimate | Std. Error | 95% CI | P-value
--- | --- | --- | --- | ---
Week 24
LS Mean (Drug A) | 0.00 | 0.00 | (-0.00, 0.00) | 0.921
LS Mean (Placebo) | 0.03 | 0.01 | (0.01, 0.05) | 0.007
Treatment Difference | −0.03 | 0.01 | (-0.05, -0.01) | 0.007
Week 48
LS Mean (Drug A) | 0.01 | 0.01 | (-0.00, 0.02) | 0.150
LS Mean (Placebo) | 0.10 | 0.02 | (0.06, 0.14) | < 0.001
Treatment Difference | −0.10 | 0.02 | (-0.14, -0.05) | < 0.001
Pooling method: rubin
Number of imputations: 100
Confidence level: 95%

# 4 Clinical Cutoff Responder (CHG > 5)

The key advantage of working with imputed continuous data is the flexibility to derive new binary endpoints without re-running the imputation model. Here, we define a more stringent “clinically meaningful improvement” threshold of CHG > 5.

## 4.1 Derive the New Endpoint

We create a new binary column `RESP5` directly from the continuous `CHG` values in the imputed data:

    ADMI_cutoff <- ADMI |>
      mutate(RESP5 = as.numeric(CHG > 5))

We can inspect the responder rates by treatment arm and visit:

    ADMI_cutoff |>
      group_by(TRT, AVISIT) |>
      summarise(
        n = n(),
        responders = sum(RESP5),
        rate = mean(RESP5),
        .groups = "drop"
      )
    #> # A tibble: 4 × 5
    #>   TRT     AVISIT      n responders    rate
    #>   <fct>   <fct>   <int>      <dbl>   <dbl>
    #> 1 Placebo Week 24 23900        105 0.00439
    #> 2 Placebo Week 48 23900        941 0.0394
    #> 3 Drug A  Week 24 26100          0 0
    #> 4 Drug A  Week 48 26100          0 0

## 4.2 Analyse

We define new analysis variables pointing to the `RESP5` outcome and repeat the analysis:

    vars_cutoff <- set_vars(
      subjid = "USUBJID",
      visit = "AVISIT",
      group = "TRT",
      outcome = "RESP5",
      covariates = c("BASE", "STRATA", "REGION")
    )

    ana_obj_cutoff <- analyse_mi_data(
      data = ADMI_cutoff,
      vars = vars_cutoff,
      method = method,
      fun = gcomp_responder_multi,
      reference_levels = "Placebo"
    )

## 4.3 Pool and Display

    pool_obj_cutoff <- pool(ana_obj_cutoff)

    tidy_pool_obj(pool_obj_cutoff)
    #> # A tibble: 6 × 10
    #>   parameter         description visit parameter_type lsm_type       est       se
    #>   <chr>             <chr>       <chr> <chr>          <chr>        <dbl>    <dbl>
    #> 1 trt_Drug A-Place… Treatment … Week… trt            <NA>     -4.39e- 3 4.28e- 3
    #> 2 lsm_Drug A_Week … Least Squa… Week… lsm            Drug A    1.58e-11 9.51e-12
    #> 3 lsm_Placebo_Week… Least Squa… Week… lsm            Placebo   4.39e- 3 4.28e- 3
    #> 4 trt_Drug A-Place… Treatment … Week… trt            <NA>     -4.30e- 2 1.39e- 2
    #> 5 lsm_Drug A_Week … Least Squa… Week… lsm            Drug A    4.35e-10 3.45e-11
    #> 6 lsm_Placebo_Week… Least Squa… Week… lsm            Placebo   4.30e- 2 1.39e- 2
    #> # ℹ 3 more variables: lci <dbl>, uci <dbl>, pval <dbl>

    efficacy_table(
      pool_obj_cutoff,
      title = "Responder Analysis: CHG > 5",
      subtitle = "G-computation with Marginal Effects (Ge et al.)",
      arm_labels = c(ref = "Placebo", alt = "Drug A")
    )

Responder Analysis: CHG > 5
G-computation with Marginal Effects (Ge et al.)
| Estimate | Std. Error | 95% CI | P-value
--- | --- | --- | --- | ---
Week 24
LS Mean (Drug A) | 0.00 | 0.00 | (-0.00, 0.00) | 0.098
LS Mean (Placebo) | 0.00 | 0.00 | (-0.00, 0.01) | 0.304
Treatment Difference | 0.00 | 0.00 | (-0.01, 0.00) | 0.304
Week 48
LS Mean (Drug A) | 0.00 | 0.00 | (0.00, 0.00) | < 0.001
LS Mean (Placebo) | 0.04 | 0.01 | (0.02, 0.07) | 0.002
Treatment Difference | −0.04 | 0.01 | (-0.07, -0.02) | 0.002
Pooling method: rubin
Number of imputations: 100
Confidence level: 95%

# 5 Storing Results as ARD

The Analysis Results Dataset (ARD) format from the pharmaverse provides a standardised long-format representation suitable for downstream use with tools like gtsummary. The `pool_to_ard()` function converts a pool object into this format:

    ard <- pool_to_ard(pool_obj)
    print(ard)
    #>    group1 group1_level         group2 group2_level   group3 group3_level
    #> 1   visit      Week 24 parameter_type          trt lsm_type           NA
    #> 2   visit      Week 24 parameter_type          trt lsm_type           NA
    #> 3   visit      Week 24 parameter_type          trt lsm_type           NA
    #> 4   visit      Week 24 parameter_type          trt lsm_type           NA
    #> 5   visit      Week 24 parameter_type          trt lsm_type           NA
    #> 6   visit      Week 24 parameter_type          trt lsm_type           NA
    #> 7   visit      Week 24 parameter_type          lsm lsm_type       Drug A
    #> 8   visit      Week 24 parameter_type          lsm lsm_type       Drug A
    #> 9   visit      Week 24 parameter_type          lsm lsm_type       Drug A
    #> 10  visit      Week 24 parameter_type          lsm lsm_type       Drug A
    #>                      variable variable_level stat_name stat_label   stat
    #> 1  trt_Drug A-Placebo_Week 24             NA  estimate   Estimate -0.031
    #> 2  trt_Drug A-Placebo_Week 24             NA std.error  Std. Err…  0.012
    #> 3  trt_Drug A-Placebo_Week 24             NA  conf.low  95% CI L… -0.053
    #> 4  trt_Drug A-Placebo_Week 24             NA conf.high  95% CI U… -0.008
    #> 5  trt_Drug A-Placebo_Week 24             NA   p.value    p-value  0.007
    #> 6  trt_Drug A-Placebo_Week 24             NA    method     Method  rubin
    #> 7          lsm_Drug A_Week 24             NA  estimate   Estimate      0
    #> 8          lsm_Drug A_Week 24             NA std.error  Std. Err…  0.001
    #> 9          lsm_Drug A_Week 24             NA  conf.low  95% CI L… -0.001
    #> 10         lsm_Drug A_Week 24             NA conf.high  95% CI U…  0.002

Each row in the ARD represents a single statistic (estimate, standard error, confidence interval bound, or p-value) for a given parameter, with grouping columns for visit, parameter type, and least-squares-mean type. This format integrates directly into pharmaverse reporting workflows.

# 6 Caveats

When deriving binary responder endpoints from multiply imputed continuous data, keep the following considerations in mind:

- Imputation model assumptions carry forward. The binary endpoints are derived from continuous values that were imputed under a specific model (e.g., Bayesian MMRM with jump-to-reference). The validity of the responder analysis depends on the appropriateness of that continuous imputation model.

- Pre-specify responder thresholds. Responder definitions and their thresholds should be documented in the statistical analysis plan before unblinding. Post-hoc threshold selection risks inflating type I error.

- Results are conditional on reference-based assumptions. The imputed values – and therefore the derived responder status – reflect the chosen reference-based assumption (e.g., jump-to-reference, copy-reference). Different assumptions will produce different responder rates.