{"paper":{"title":"Population-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison with the outstandR Package in R","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"stat.CO","authors_text":"Nathan Green","submitted_at":"2026-01-12T13:33:15Z","abstract_excerpt":"Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) are essential in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) when head-to-head clinical trials are absent. A common challenge arises when attempting to compare a treatment with available individual patient data (IPD) against a competitor with only reported aggregate-level data (ALD), particularly when trial populations differ in effect modifiers. While methods such as Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) exist to adjust for these cross-trial differences, they are increasingly being superseded by regression-based marginalization methods. Historically, softwa"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2601.07532","kind":"arxiv","version":3},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2601.07532/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"}