ArticleThe AAPS journal2016
Improvement of Parameter Estimations in Tumor Growth Inhibition Models on Xenografted Animals: Handling Sacrifice Censoring and Error Caused by Experimental Measurement on Larger Tumor Sizes.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of censoring due to animal sacrifice on parameter estimates and tumor volume calculated from two diameters in larger tumors during tumor growth experiments in preclinical studies. The type of measurement error that can be expected was also investigated. Different scenarios were challenged using the stochastic simulation and estimation process. One thousand datasets were simulated under the design of a typical tumor growth study in xenografted mice, and then, eight approaches were used for parameter estimation with the simulated datasets. The distribution of estimates and simulation-based diagnostics were computed for comparison. The different approaches were robust regarding the choice of residual error and gave equivalent results. However, by not considering missing data induced by sacrificing the animal, parameter estimates were biased and led to false inferences in terms of compound potency; the threshold concentration for tumor eradication when ignoring censoring was 581 ng.ml(-1), but the true value was 240 ng.ml(-1).
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.