From Fragility Index to Fragility Distance in Clinical Trials

Authors

  • Thomas F. Heston Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA; Department of Medical Education and Clinical Sciences, Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, Washington State University, Spokane, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5655-2512

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22072163

Keywords:

fragility distance, fragility index, global fragility index, statistical fragility, perturbation fragility, edit distance, clinical trials

Abstract

Fragility indexes attempt to quantify the minimum perturbation that reverses a sample's statistical significance under an unstated constraint: the trial roster is closed, so only the recorded outcomes of enrolled patients may change. The fragility distance (FD) removes that constraint, defining fragility as the L1 edit distance from the observed 2×2 table to the significance boundary, where one unit is one patient added to or removed from any cell. Because every constrained index bounds the FD from above, the published toggle and transfer indexes become special cases of a single geometric quantity. In a published phase 2 trial reporting no significant difference (p = 0.0903), FD = 1: the removal of a single patient reverses the significance classification, a proximity to the boundary that the global fragility index, also equal to 1 but denominated in two-cell moves, understates by half. Reporting FD with its witness table gives the true minimum perturbation, priced in the one unit that occurs in every real trial: the enrollment, or the loss, of a single patient.

References

1. Feinstein AR. The unit fragility index: an additional appraisal of “statistical significance” for a contrast of two proportions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43: 201–209. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90186-s

2. Walter SD. Statistical significance and fragility criteria for assessing a difference of two proportions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44: 1373–1378. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(91)90098-T

3. Walsh M, Srinathan SK, McAuley DF, Mrkobrada M, Levine O, Ribic C, et al. The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a Fragility Index. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67: 622–628. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.019

4. Heston TF. Bidirectional fragility is a step forward but not far enough: the case for a global fragility index. Internet Med J. 2026;1: e19464166–e19464166. doi:10.5281/zenodo.19464166

5. Heston TF. Resampling Fragility, Perturbation Fragility, and Why the Global Fragility Index Is Not a P-Value in Disguise. Internet Med J. 2026;1: e22059146. doi:10.5281/zenodo.22059146

6. Baer BR, Fremes SE, Gaudino M, Charlson M, Wells MT. On clinical trial fragility due to patients lost to follow up. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21: 254. doi:10.1186/s12874-021-01446-z

7. Loomba R, Abdelmalek MF, Armstrong MJ, Jara M, Kjær MS, Krarup N, et al. Semaglutide 2·4 mg once weekly in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis-related cirrhosis: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;8: 511–522. doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(23)00068-7

Downloads

Published

2026-08-24

How to Cite

Heston, T. F. (2026). From Fragility Index to Fragility Distance in Clinical Trials. Internet Medical Journal, 1(1), e22072163. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22072163

Issue

Section

Perspectives