ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2017
Personalized Medicine Enrichment Design for DHA Supplementation Clinical Trial.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2017. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- DHA and Cancer: The Uncharted Territory of Nutritional Oncology.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Personalized medicine aims to match patient subpopulation to the most beneficial treatment. The purpose of this study is to design a prospective clinical trial in which we hope to achieve the highest level of confirmation in identifying and making treatment recommendations for subgroups, when the risk levels in the control arm can be ordered. This study was motivated by our goal to identify subgroups in a DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) supplementation trial to reduce preterm birth (gestational age<37 weeks) rate. We performed a meta-analysis to obtain informative prior distributions and simulated operating characteristics to ensure that overall Type I error rate was close to 0.05 in designs with three different models: independent, hierarchical, and dynamic linear models. We performed simulations and sensitivity analysis to examine the subgroup power of models and compared results to a chi-square test. We performed simulations under two hypotheses: a large overall treatment effect and a small overall treatment effect. Within each hypothesis, we designed three different subgroup effects scenarios where resulting subgroup rates are linear, flat, or nonlinear. When the resulting subgroup rates are linear or flat, dynamic linear model appeared to be the most powerful method to identify the subgroups with a treatment effect. It also outperformed other methods when resulting subgroup rates are nonlinear and the overall treatment effect is big. When the resulting subgroup rates are nonlinear and the overall treatment effect is small, hierarchical model and chi-square test did better. Compared to independent and hierarchical models, dynamic linear model tends to be relatively robust and powerful when the control arm has ordinal risk subgroups.
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.