ArticleStatistics in medicine2024
Bayesian Safety and Futility Monitoring in Phase II Trials Using One Utility-Based Rule.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 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.
- Challenging go/no-go decision scenarios and design recommendations in phase II oncology trials.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
For phase II clinical trials that determine the acceptability of an experimental treatment based on ordinal toxicity and ordinal response, most monitoring methods require each ordinal outcome to be dichotomized using a selected cut-point. This allows two early stopping rules to be constructed that compare marginal probabilities of toxicity and response to respective upper and lower limits. Important problems with this approach are loss of information due to dichotomization, dependence of treatment acceptability decisions on precisely how each ordinal variable is dichotomized, and ignoring association between the two outcomes. To address these problems, we propose a new Bayesian method, which we call U-Bayes, that exploits elicited numerical utilities of the joint ordinal outcomes to construct one early stopping rule that compares the mean utility to a lower limit. U-Bayes avoids the problems noted above by using the entire joint distribution of the ordinal outcomes, and not dichotomizing the outcomes. A step-by-step algorithm is provided for constructing a U-Bayes rule based on elicited utilities and elicited limits on marginal outcome probabilities. A simulation study shows that U-Bayes greatly improves the probability of determining treatment acceptability compared to conventional designs that use two monitoring rules based on marginal probabilities.
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.