ArticleJournal of the American Statistical Association2016
Active Clinical Trials for Personalized Medicine.
Article in Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Weight loss at your fingertips: personalized nutrition with fasting glucose and insulin using a novel statistical approach.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2019Trial
- A review of research on eligibility criteria for clinical trials.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Review
- Non-asymptotic Properties of Individualized Treatment Rules from Sequentially Rule-Adaptive Trials.Journal of machine learning research : JMLR · 2022Article
- Improving genomics-based predictions for precision medicine through active elicitation of expert knowledge.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018Article
- Prospects and challenges for clinical decision support in the era of big data.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Individualized treatment rules (ITRs) tailor treatments according to individual patient characteristics. They can significantly improve patient care and are thus becoming increasingly popular. The data collected during randomized clinical trials are often used to estimate the optimal ITRs. However, these trials are generally expensive to run, and, moreover, they are not designed to efficiently estimate ITRs. In this article, we propose a cost-effective estimation method from an active learning perspective. In particular, our method recruits only the "most informative" patients (in terms of learning the optimal ITRs) from an ongoing clinical trial. Simulation studies and real-data examples show that our active clinical trial method significantly improves on competing methods. We derive risk bounds and show that they support these observed empirical advantages. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
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.