ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2021
The importance of loss functions: A note on the evolution of the Toxicity Probability Interval design.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2021. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Toxicity Probability Interval Design by Ji et al. (2007), which was subsequently modified by the mTPI (Ji et al., 2010), proposed a more efficient approach to early-phase dose-finding than conventional designs like 3 + 3. Subsequent authors reported issues with the method, finding that it tends to stay at a dose level when clinical intuition would suggest the toxicity level warrants decrease. Several iterations of refinement proceeded in an effort to address these issues, including the mTPI-2 and the keyboard method, as well as alternative approaches such as the BOIN. This author suggests the reason for these safety issues involves the underlying loss function. The TPI and mTPI used the identify function defined over wide intervals. As explained in this paper, this function and its domain can be problematic as a model of patients' loss experience. Later refinements moved the loss function closer to one more consistent with clinical intuition, and this explains their improved safety performance. Greater attention to quality as defined by fitness for use, including early evaluation of patient-experience and clinical-intuition implications of proposed loss functions, may improve future design efforts.
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.