Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24159249›Full record

ArticleComputational statistics & data analysis2014

Optimizing parameters in clinical trials with a randomized start or withdrawal design.

Chengjie Xiong, Jingqin Luo, Feng Gao, John C Morris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational statistics & data analysis, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chengjie XiongDivision of Biostatistics, Washington University, St. Louis, USA ; Knight Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
Jingqin Luo
Feng Gao
John C Morris

Funding

Smartphone-Based "Burst" Cognitive AssessmentsP01AG003991 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Tammie Lee Smith Benzinger · 1985 to 2026
$69.5M
Imaging CoreU19AG032438 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BATEMAN, RANDALL J · 2010 to 2025
$53.9M
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ALZHEIMERS DISEASE RESEARCH CENTERP50AG005681 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MORRIS, JOHN · 1985 to 2019
$52.1M
The natural history of AB accumulation in preclinical ADP01AG026276 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI SCHINDLER, SUZANNE ELIZABETH · 2005 to 2025
$49.5M
Improving Cognitive Outcome Precision & Responsiveness with Modern PsychometricsR01AG029672 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI CRANE, PAUL K · 2007 to 2021
$7.0M
Imaging CoreU01AG032438 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MORRIS, JOHN · 2008 to 2009
$6.1M
TWO PRECLINICAL LATENT SCORES TO PREDICT OCCURRENCE OF DATR01AG034119 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI XIONG, CHENGJIE · 2010 to 2014
$1.6M
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG003991NIA NIH HHS P01 AG026276NIA NIH HHS P50 AG005681NIA NIH HHS R01 AG029672NIA NIH HHS R01 AG034119NIA NIH HHS U01 AG032438NIA NIH HHS U19 AG032438
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disease-modifying (DM) trials on chronic diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) require a randomized start or withdrawal design. The analysis and optimization of such trials remain poorly understood, even for the simplest scenario in which only three repeated efficacy assessments are planned for each subject: one at the baseline, one at the end of the trial, and the other at the time when the treatments are switched. Under the assumption that the repeated measures across subjects follow a trivariate distribution whose mean and covariance matrix exist, the DM efficacy hypothesis is formulated by comparing the change of efficacy outcome between treatment arms with and without a treatment switch. Using a minimax criterion, a methodology is developed to optimally determine the sample size allocations to individual treatment arms as well as the optimum time when treatments are switched. The sensitivity of the optimum designs with respect to various model parameters is further assessed. An intersection-union test (IUT) is proposed to test the DM hypothesis, and determine the asymptotic size and the power of the IUT. Finally, the proposed methodology is demonstrated by using reported statistics on the placebo arms from several recently published symptomatic trials on AD to estimate necessary parameters and then deriving the optimum sample sizes and the time of treatment switch for future DM trials on AD.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseaseDisease-modifying trialsIntersection-union testMinimax criterionRandom intercept and slope modelsRandomized start design

Identifiers

PMID24159249
PMCPMC3804275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.