Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25376910›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2015

Modeling and validating Bayesian accrual models on clinical data and simulations using adaptive priors.

Yu Jiang, Steve Simon, Matthew S Mayo, Byron J Gajewski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A novel evaluation of optimality for randomized controlled trials.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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.

Yu JiangDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, 66160, U.S.A.
Steve Simon
Matthew S Mayo
Byron J Gajewski

Funding

Transgenic & Gene-Targeting Shared ResourceP30CA168524 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI NICOLE L NOLLEN · 2012 to 2026
$40.1M
Disease Management for Smokers in Rural Primary CareR01CA101963 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI ELLERBECK, EDWARD F. · 2003 to 2013
$6.3M
Helping African American Light Smokers QuitR01CA091912 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI COX, LISA SANDERSON · 2001 to 2010
$5.6M
Tailored Touchscreen Colorectal Cancer Prevention in Urban Core ClinicsR01CA123245 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI GREINER, K ALLEN · 2007 to 2010
$2.2M
NCI NIH HHS 1 P30 CA168524NCI NIH HHS P30 CA168524NCI NIH HHS R01 CA091912NCI NIH HHS R01CA091912NCI NIH HHS R01CA091912-09S1NCI NIH HHS R01 CA101963NCI NIH HHS R01CA101963NCI NIH HHS R01 CA123245NCI NIH HHS R01CA123245
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Slow recruitment in clinical trials leads to increased costs and resource utilization, which includes both the clinic staff and patient volunteers. Careful planning and monitoring of the accrual process can prevent the unnecessary loss of these resources. We propose two hierarchical extensions to the existing Bayesian constant accrual model: the accelerated prior and the hedging prior. The new proposed priors are able to adaptively utilize the researcher's previous experience and current accrual data to produce the estimation of trial completion time. The performance of these models, including prediction precision, coverage probability, and correct decision-making ability, is evaluated using actual studies from our cancer center and simulation. The results showed that a constant accrual model with strongly informative priors is very accurate when accrual is on target or slightly off, producing smaller mean squared error, high percentage of coverage, and a high number of correct decisions as to whether or not continue the trial, but it is strongly biased when off target. Flat or weakly informative priors provide protection against an off target prior but are less efficient when the accrual is on target. The accelerated prior performs similar to a strong prior. The hedging prior performs much like the weak priors when the accrual is extremely off target but closer to the strong priors when the accrual is on target or only slightly off target. We suggest improvements in these models and propose new models for future research.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremModels, StatisticalBiostatisticsBupropionClinical Trials as TopicColorectal NeoplasmsComputer SimulationHumansPatient SelectionSample SizeSmoking CessationTime FactorsBupropionclinical trialsdata-monitoring committeehedging priorobjective priorpatient accrual

Identifiers

PMID25376910
PMCPMC4314351

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.