Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39587432›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical statistics

Bayesian Solutions for Assessing Differential Effects in Biomarker Positive and Negative Subgroups.

Dan Jackson, Fanni Zhang, Carl-Fredrik Burman, Linda Sharples

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical statistics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Dan JacksonStatistical Innovation, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4963-8123
Fanni ZhangStatistical Innovation, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, USA.
Carl-Fredrik BurmanStatistical Innovation, AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6104-7150
Linda SharplesDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number of clinical trials that include a binary biomarker in design and analysis has risen due to the advent of personalised medicine. This presents challenges for medical decision makers because a drug may confer a stronger effect in the biomarker positive group, and so be approved either in this subgroup alone or in the all-comer population. We develop and evaluate Bayesian methods that can be used to assess this. All our methods are based on the same statistical model for the observed data but we propose different prior specifications to express differing degrees of knowledge about the extent to which the treatment may be more effective in one subgroup than the other. We illustrate our methods using some real examples. We also show how our methodology is useful when designing trials where the size of the biomarker negative subgroup is to be determined. We conclude that our Bayesian framework is a natural tool for making decisions, for example, whether to recommend using the treatment in the biomarker negative subgroup where the treatment is less likely to be efficacious, or determining the number of biomarker positive and negative patients to include when designing a trial.

Indexed as

BiomarkersClinical Trials as TopicModels, StatisticalResearch DesignBayes TheoremHumansPrecision MedicineBiomarkersinformative prior distributionsmedical decision makingprior sensitivitysubgroup analysis

Identifiers

PMID39587432
PMCPMC11893291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.