Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34027221›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2021

The importance of loss functions: A note on the evolution of the Toxicity Probability Interval design.

Jonathan Siegel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Jonathan SiegelBayer US LLC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical trial designDose escalationLoss functionProbability toxicity intervalStatistical ethics

Identifiers

PMID34027221
PMCPMC8131893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.