Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39853785›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2025

On Inclusion of Covariates in Model Based Dose Finding Clinical Trial Designs.

Adrien Ollier, Pavel Mozgunov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. 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

2 authors.

Adrien OllierMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8672-4549
Pavel MozgunovMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6810-0284

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00040/03National Institute for Health Research NIHR300576
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing number of Phase I dose-finding studies that use a model-based approach, such as the CRM or the EWOC method to estimate the dose-toxicity relationship. It is common to assume that all patients will have similar toxicity risk given the dose regardless of patients' individual characteristics. In many trials, however, some patients' covariates (e.g., a concomitant drug assigned by a clinician) might have an impact on the dose-toxicity relationship. In this work, motivated by a real trial, we evaluate an impact of taking into account (or omitting) some patients' covariates on the individual target dose recommendations and patients' safety in Phase I model-based dose-finding study. We investigate several variable penalisation criteria and found that, for continuous and binary covariates, omitting a prognostic covariate leads to a drastically low proportion of correct selections and an increase of overdosing. At the same time, including a covariate can lead to good operating characteristics in all scenarios but can sometimes slightly decrease the proportion of good selections and increase the overdosing. To tackle this, we propose to use a Bayesian Lasso Bayesian Logistic Regression Model (BLRM) and Spike-and-Slab BLRM. We have found that the BLRM coupled to the Bayesian LASSO and the BLRM with Spike-and-Slab are on average better appropriate to consider variable inclusion.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase I as TopicDose-Response Relationship, DrugModels, StatisticalBayes TheoremComputer SimulationHumansLogistic ModelsMaximum Tolerated DoseResearch DesignBayesian analysisBayesian LassoBLRMdose‐findingvariable inclusion

Identifiers

PMID39853785
PMCPMC11758501

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.