ArticleJournal of statistical planning and inference2019
Design of experiments for a confirmatory trial of precision medicine.
Article in Journal of statistical planning and inference, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Precision medicine, aka stratified/personalized medicine, is becoming more pronounced in the medical field due to advancement in computational ability to learn about patient genomic backgrounds. A biomaker, i.e. a type of biological process indicator, is often used in precision medicine to classify patient population into several subgroups. The aim of precision medicine is to tailor treatment regimes for different patient subgroups who suffer from the same disease. A multi-arm design could be conducted to explore the effect of treatment regimes on different biomarker subgroups. However, if treatments work only on certain subgroups, which is often the case, enrolling all patient subgroups in a confirmatory trial would increase the burden of a study. Having observed a phase II trial, we propose a design framework for finding an optimal design that could be implemented in a phase III study or a confirmatory trial. We consider two elements in our approach: Bayesian data analysis of observed data, and design of experiments. The first tool selects subgroups and treatments to be enrolled in the future trial whereas the second tool provides an optimal treatment randomization scheme for each selected/enrolled subgroups. Considering two independent treatments and two independent biomarkers, we illustrate our approach using simulation studies. We demonstrate efficiency gain, i.e. high probability of recommending truly effective treatments in the right subgroup, of the optimal design found by our framework over a randomized controlled trial and a biomarker-treatment linked trial.
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.