ArticlePloS one2019
The use of a predictive statistical model to make a virtual control arm for a clinical trial.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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.
- Transfer Learning and Machine Learning for Training Five-Year Survival Prognostic Models in Early Breast Cancer: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Synthetic Data in Healthcare and Drug Development: Definitions, Regulatory Frameworks, Issues.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Review
- Advancing rare disease therapeutics through digital twins: Opportunities in drug development and precision dosing.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Review
- Conditional distribution modeling as an alternative method for covariates simulation: Comparison with joint multivariate normal and bootstrap techniques.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2021Article
- Virtual controls as an alternative to randomized controlled trials for assessing efficacy of interventions.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomized clinical trials compare participants receiving an experimental intervention to participants receiving standard of care (SOC). If one could predict the outcome for participants receiving SOC, a trial could be designed where all participants received the experimental intervention, with the observed outcome of the experimental group compared to the prediction for those individuals.
methodsWe used the CancerMath calculator to predict outcomes for participants in two large clinical trials of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: NSABPB15 and CALGB9344. NSABPB15 was the training set, and we used the modified algorithm to predict outcomes for two groups from CALGB9344: one which received standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy and one which received paclitaxel in addition. We made a prediction for each individual CALGB9344 participant, assuming each received only SOC.
resultsThe predicted outcome for the group which received only SOC matched what was observed in the CALGB9344 trial. In contrast, the predicted outcome for the group also receiving paclitaxel was significantly worse than what was observed for this group. This matches the conclusion of CALGB9344 that adding paclitaxel to SOC improves survival.
conclusionThis project proves that a statistical model can predict the outcome of clinical trial participants treated with SOC. In some circumstances, a predictive model could be used instead of a control arm, allowing all participants to receive experimental treatment. Predictive models for cancer and other diseases could be constructed using the vast amount of outcomes data available to the federal government, and made available for public use.
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.