ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
A Biomarker Signature-Guided Clinical Trial Design for Precision Medicine.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exercise as a Programmable Regulator of Mitophagy Sensitivity in Aging Muscle and Age-Related Disease.IUBMB life · 2026Review
- Mapping the Ischemic Continuum: Dynamic Multi-Omic Biomarker and AI for Personalized Stroke Care.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Targeted cancer therapies aim to effectively treat patients with specific biomarker profiles. Nevertheless, these therapies may not always precisely hit their intended targets, leading to uncertainty about the specific subset of patients who will benefit. To address this uncertainty, the identification of sensitive patient subsets in clinical trials becomes crucial. Our proposed phase IIB/III clinical trial design seeks to pinpoint a biomarker signature with precision, ensuring the accurate identification of patients who will respond to a specific treatment. This approach allows for the selective enrollment of sensitive patients to maximize benefits for trial participants. We incorporate Bayesian methodology to facilitate response-adaptive randomization, enhancing the likelihood that each participant receives his/her optimal treatment. Furthermore, our design uses inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighted analysis to avoid selection bias and control for the type I error rate. The evaluation of this trial design is based on four criteria: the statistical power, response rate of all patients participating in the current trial, their individual loss, and probabilities of receiving their optimal treatment for both current trial participants and future patients. Simulations demonstrate the proposed design's potential for maximizing trial participants' benefits with little sacrifice on statistical power. Its key advantages include an improved overall response rate within the trial and a higher percentage of patients receiving the optimal treatment.
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.