Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40095254›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2025

Adaptive Weight Selection for Time-To-Event Data Under Non-Proportional Hazards.

Moritz Fabian Danzer, Ina Dormuth

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.

Moritz Fabian DanzerInstitute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0512-4227
Ina DormuthDepartment of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When planning a clinical trial for a time-to-event endpoint, we require an estimated effect size and need to consider the type of effect. Usually, an effect of proportional hazards is assumed with the hazard ratio as the corresponding effect measure. Thus, the standard procedure for survival data is generally based on a single-stage log-rank test. Knowing that the assumption of proportional hazards is often violated and sufficient knowledge to derive reasonable effect sizes is usually unavailable, such an approach is relatively rigid. We introduce a more flexible procedure by combining two methods designed to be more robust in case we have little to no prior knowledge. First, we employ a more flexible adaptive multi-stage design instead of a single-stage design. Second, we apply combination-type tests in the first stage of our suggested procedure to benefit from their robustness under uncertainty about the deviation pattern. We can then use the data collected during this period to choose a more specific single-weighted log-rank test for the subsequent stages. In this step, we employ Royston-Parmar spline models to extrapolate the survival curves to make a reasonable decision. Based on a real-world data example, we show that our approach can save a trial that would otherwise end with an inconclusive result. Additionally, our simulation studies demonstrate a sufficient power performance while maintaining more flexibility.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalProportional Hazards ModelsSurvival Analysisadaptive designscombination‐type testsconditional powerinterim analysissurvival dataweighted log‐rank tests

Identifiers

PMID40095254
PMCPMC11912538

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.