Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29534298›Full record

ArticleBiometrics2018

Motivating sample sizes in adaptive Phase I trials via Bayesian posterior credible intervals.

Thomas M Braun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Thomas M BraunDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0002-7113-6998

Funding

XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI THEODORE S LAWRENCE · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In contrast with typical Phase III clinical trials, there is little existing methodology for determining the appropriate numbers of patients to enroll in adaptive Phase I trials. And, as stated by Dennis Lindley in a more general context, "[t]he simple practical question of 'What size of sample should I take' is often posed to a statistician, and it is a question that is embarrassingly difficult to answer." Historically, simulation has been the primary option for determining sample sizes for adaptive Phase I trials, and although useful, can be problematic and time-consuming when a sample size is needed relatively quickly. We propose a computationally fast and simple approach that uses Beta distributions to approximate the posterior distributions of DLT rates of each dose and determines an appropriate sample size through posterior coverage rates. We provide sample sizes produced by our methods for a vast number of realistic Phase I trial settings and demonstrate that our sample sizes are generally larger than those produced by a competing approach that is based upon the nonparametric optimal design.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremResearch DesignStatistical DistributionsClinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationHumansModels, StatisticalSample SizeContinual reassessment methodDose-findingDose-limiting toxicityMaximum tolerated dose

Identifiers

PMID29534298
PMCPMC9109046

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.