Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33073685›Full record

ArticleJournal of biopharmaceutical statistics2020

Multi-stage adaptive enrichment trial design with subgroup estimation.

Neha Joshi, Crystal Nguyen, Anastasia Ivanova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Neha JoshiDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Crystal NguyenDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Anastasia IvanovaDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

Data, Modeling,and Coordination Center for PrecISE NetworkU24HL138998 · NHLBI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ANSTROM, KEVIN J, IVANOVA, ANASTASIA · 2017 to 2022
$44.0M
Statistical Methods for Cancer Clinical TrialsP01CA142538 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAVIDIAN, MARIE, KOSOROK, MICHAEL R · 2010 to 2019
$21.3M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA142538NHLBI NIH HHS U24 HL138998
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We consider the problem of estimating the best subgroup and testing for treatment effect in a clinical trial. We define the best subgroup as the subgroup that maximizes a utility function that reflects the trade-off between the subgroup size and the treatment effect. For moderate effect sizes and sample sizes, simpler methods for subgroup estimation worked better than more complex tree-based regression approaches. We propose a three-stage design with a weighted inverse normal combination test to test the hypothesis of no treatment effect across the three stages.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicResearch DesignHumansSample SizeAdaptive enrichmentpredictive biomarkersubgroup estimation

Identifiers

PMID33073685
PMCPMC7954857

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.