Install
$ agentstack add skill-choxos-biostatagent-maic-methodology ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
MAIC Methodology
Comprehensive methodological guidance for conducting rigorous Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons following NICE DSU TSD 18.
When to Use This Skill
- Deciding whether to use MAIC vs other ITC methods
- Selecting covariates for matching
- Interpreting weight diagnostics and ESS
- Choosing between anchored and unanchored MAIC
- Reviewing MAIC code or results
Fundamental Assumptions
Key Assumption: Conditional Constancy of Relative Effects
For Anchored MAIC:
- The relative treatment effect (vs common comparator) is the same across populations AFTER adjusting for effect modifiers
- This is untestable - relies on clinical judgment
- Requires all effect modifiers to be included in matching
No Unmeasured Effect Modifiers
Critical: MAIC assumes that adjusting for measured covariates
removes all population differences that modify treatment effects.
If there are unmeasured effect modifiers:
├── Anchored MAIC: Biased indirect comparison
└── Unanchored MAIC: Even more biased
There is NO WAY to test this assumption with available data.
Unanchored MAIC: Additional Assumptions
- All prognostic factors (not just effect modifiers) must be adjusted
- Absolute treatment effects are transportable across populations
- Much stronger, often implausible assumptions
- Should be avoided if anchored is possible
When to Use MAIC
MAIC is Appropriate When:
- IPD available for one trial (index trial)
- Only AgD available for comparator trial
- Important population differences exist between trials
- Effect modifiers are known and measured
- Sufficient overlap in covariate distributions
MAIC May Not Be Best When:
- Populations are very similar → Standard ITC may suffice
- Little covariate overlap → ESS will be very low
- Effect modifiers unknown → Cannot ensure adjustment
- Connected network exists → Consider NMA first
Covariate Selection
Selection Criteria
Include covariates that are:
├── Effect modifiers (interact with treatment effect)
│ - Based on clinical evidence
│ - Biological plausibility
│ - Subgroup analyses from trials
├── Available in both trials
│ - IPD: Individual-level data
│ - AgD: Published summary statistics
└── Different between trial populations
- Check if actually imbalanced
- No need to match on similar values
What NOT to Include
- Variables balanced between populations (wasteful)
- Pure prognostic factors in anchored MAIC unless they are also effect modifiers or needed for a prespecified sensitivity analysis
- Variables not reported in AgD (impossible to match)
- Too many variables (ESS concerns)
Practical Strategy
- Start with clinical knowledge - Known effect modifiers
- Check availability - What's reported in AgD?
- Assess imbalance - Compare IPD means to AgD targets
- Start conservative - Fewer variables, check ESS
- Iterate - Add variables if ESS remains acceptable
Effective Sample Size (ESS)
Definition
ESS = (Σ weights)² / Σ(weights²)
Represents the "equivalent" unweighted sample size
that would give same precision as weighted analysis.
Interpretation Guidelines
| ESS (% of original) | Interpretation | Recommendation | |--------------------|----------------|----------------| | >70% | Good | Proceed with confidence | | 50-70% | Acceptable | Proceed with caution | | 30-50% | Concerning | Reconsider covariates | | 5% of total weight
- ESS 50% of original
- No extreme weights
- Balance achieved
5. Run anchored MAIC
result <- maicanchored( weightsobject = weights, ipd = ipd, pseudoipd = pseudoipd, trtipd = "TreatmentA", trtagd = "TreatmentB", trtcommon = "Placebo", endpointtype = "binary", effmeasure = "OR", bootci_type = "perc" )
6. Report
result$inferential$summary
## Resources
- NICE DSU TSD 18: Population-adjusted indirect comparisons
- Signorovitch et al. (2010): Original MAIC methodology
- Phillippo et al. (2016): Methods review
- maicplus package documentation
## Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- **Author:** [choxos](https://github.com/choxos)
- **Source:** [choxos/BiostatAgent](https://github.com/choxos/BiostatAgent)
- **License:** MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.