ArticleStatistics in medicine2017
Inference for multimarker adaptive enrichment trials.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Precision in Critical Care Research: Methods for Observational and Interventional Studies.Critical care medicine · 2024Review
- Multi-stage adaptive enrichment trial design with subgroup estimation.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2020Article
- Article
- The Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Article
- Merging new-age biomarkers and nanodiagnostics for precision prostate cancer management.Nature reviews. Urology · 2019Review
- Auxiliary variable-enriched biomarker-stratified design.Statistics in medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identification of treatment selection biomarkers has become very important in cancer drug development. Adaptive enrichment designs have been developed for situations where a unique treatment selection biomarker is not apparent based on the mechanism of action of the drug. With such designs, the eligibility rules may be adaptively modified at interim analysis times to exclude patients who are unlikely to benefit from the test treatment.We consider a recently proposed, particularly flexible approach that permits development of model-based multifeature predictive classifiers as well as optimized cut-points for continuous biomarkers. A single significance test, including all randomized patients, is performed at the end of the trial of the strong null hypothesis that the expected outcome on the test treatment is no better than control for any of the subset populations of patients accrued in the K stages of the clinical trial. In this paper, we address 2 issues involving inference following an adaptive enrichment design as described above. The first is specification of the intended use population and estimation of treatment effect for that population following rejection of the strong null hypothesis. The second issue is defining conditions in which rejection of the strong null hypothesis implies rejection of the null hypothesis for the intended use population.
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.