ArticleTrials2014
Improving clinical trial efficiency by biomarker-guided patient selection.
Article in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Disrupting the Undruggable: Emerging Modalities for Targeting Protein-Protein Interactions in Oncology.Biology · 2026Review
- Emerging Chimeric Antigen Receptor-Immune Cell Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer: Mechanisms, Clinical Advances, and Future Perspectives.Oncology research · 2026Review
- From Bench to Bedside: New Frontiers in Understanding and Treating Postoperative Delirium.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Disease trajectory of SLE clinical endpoints and covariates affecting disease severity and probability of response: Analysis of pooled patient-level placebo (Standard-of-Care) data to enable model-informed drug development.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023Article
- Combination therapy with T cell engager and PD-L1 blockade enhances the antitumor potency of T cells as predicted by a QSP model.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2020Article
- Curb Your Enthusiasm: Definitions, Adaptation, and Expectations for Quality of Life in ICU Survivorship.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2020Article
- A DREAM Challenge to Build Prediction Models for Short-Term Discontinuation of Docetaxel in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2017Article
- Integrating Pharmacoproteomics into Early-Phase Clinical Development: State-of-the-Art, Challenges, and Recommendations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn many therapeutic areas, individual patient markers have been identified that are associated with differential treatment response. These markers include both baseline characteristics, as well as short-term changes following treatment. Using such predictive markers to select subjects for inclusion in randomized clinical trials could potentially result in more targeted studies and reduce the number of subjects to recruit.
methodsThis study compared three trial designs on the sample size needed to establish treatment efficacy across a range of realistic scenarios. A conventional parallel group design served as the point of reference, while the alternative designs selected subjects on either a baseline characteristic or an early improvement after a short active run-in phase. Data were generated using a model that characterized the effect of treatment on survival as a combination of a primary effect, an interaction with a baseline marker and/or an early marker improvement. A representative scenario derived from empirical data was also evaluated.
resultsSimulations showed that an active run-in design could substantially reduce the number of subjects to recruit when improvement during active run-in was a reliable predictor of differential treatment response. In this case, the baseline selection design was also more efficient than the parallel group design, but less efficient than the active run-in design with an equally restricted population. For most scenarios, however, the advantage of the baseline selection design was limited.
conclusionsAn active run-in design could substantially reduce the number of subjects to recruit in a randomized clinical trial. However, just as with the baseline selection design, generalizability of results may be limited and implementation could be difficult.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.