ArticleStatistics in medicine2022
Subgroup-specific dose finding for phase I-II trials using Bayesian clustering.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phase I/II Design for Selecting Subgroup-Specific Optimal Biological Doses for Prespecified Subgroups.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- Adaptive Bayesian information borrowing methods for finding and optimizing subgroup-specific doses.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Review
- Subgroup-specific dose finding for phase I-II trials using Bayesian clustering.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
- A Personalized Dose-Finding Algorithm Based on Adaptive Gaussian Process Regression.Pharmaceutical statisticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In most models and algorithms for dose-finding clinical trials, it is assumed that the trial participants are homogeneous-the optimal dose is the same for all those who qualify for the trial. However, if there are heterogeneous populations who may benefit from the same treatment, it is inefficient to conduct dose-finding separately for each group, and assuming homogeneity across all subpopulations may lead to identification of the incorrect dose for some (or all) subgroups. To accommodate heterogeneity in dose-finding trials when both efficacy and toxicity outcomes must be used to identify the optimal dose (as in immunotherapeutic oncology treatments), we utilize an adaptive Bayesian clustering method which borrows strength among similar subgroups and clusters truly homogeneous subgroups. Unlike methodology already described in the literature, our proposed methodology does not require the assumption of exchangeability between subgroups or a priori ordering of subgroups, but does allow for specification of different subgroup-specific priors if prior information is available. We provide a comparison of operating characteristics between our method and Bayesian hierarchical models for subgroups in a variety of relevant scenarios. After simulation studies with four a priori subgroups, we observed that our method and the hierarchical models both outperform separate subgroup-specific models when all subgroups have the same dose-efficacy and dose-toxicity curves. However, our method outperforms hierarchical models when one subgroup has a different dose-efficacy or dose-toxicity curve from the other three subgroups.
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.