ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2024
Isotonic design for single-arm biomarker stratified trials.
Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In single-arm trials with a predefined subgroup based on baseline biomarkers, it is often assumed that a biomarker defined subgroup, the biomarker positive subgroup, has the same or higher response to treatment compared to its complement, the biomarker negative subgroup. The goal is to determine if the treatment is effective in each of the subgroups or in the biomarker positive subgroup only or not effective at all. We propose the isotonic stratified design for this problem. The design has a joint set of decision rules for biomarker positive and negative subjects and utilizes joint estimation of response probabilities using assumed monotonicity of response between the biomarker negative and positive subgroups. The new design reduces the sample size requirement when compared to running two Simon's designs in each biomarker positive and negative. For example, the new design requires 23%-35% fewer patients than running two Simon's designs for scenarios we considered. Alternatively, the new design allows evaluating the response probability in both biomarker negative and biomarker positive subgroups using only 40% more patients needed for running Simon's design in the biomarker positive subgroup only.
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.