Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41117171›Full record

ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2025

Bayesian model averaging for partial ordering continual reassessment methods.

Luka Kovačević, Weishi Chen, Helen Barnett, Thomas Jaki, Pavel Mozgunov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 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

5 authors.

Luka KovačevićMRC Biostatistics Unit, East Forvie Building, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0SR, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0008-5869-4822
Weishi ChenMRC Biostatistics Unit, East Forvie Building, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0SR, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0718-5901
Helen BarnettSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Fylde College, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YF, United Kingdom.
Thomas JakiMRC Biostatistics Unit, East Forvie Building, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0SR, United Kingdom.
Pavel MozgunovMRC Biostatistics Unit, East Forvie Building, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0SR, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6810-0284

Funding

National Institute for Health ResearchUK Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/14UK Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/19UK Medical Research Council MC_UU_00040/03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phase I clinical trials are essential to bringing novel therapies from chemical development to widespread use. Traditional approaches to dose-finding in Phase I trials, such as the '3 + 3' method and the continual reassessment method (CRM), provide a principled approach for escalating across dose levels. However, these methods lack the ability to incorporate uncertainty regarding the dose-toxicity ordering as found in combination drug trials. Under this setting, dose levels vary across multiple drugs simultaneously, leading to multiple possible dose-toxicity orderings. The CRM for partial ordering (POCRM) extends to these settings by allowing for multiple dose-toxicity orderings. In this work, it is shown that the POCRM is vulnerable to 'estimation incoherency' whereby toxicity estimates shift in an illogical way, threatening patient safety and undermining clinician trust in dose-finding models. To this end, the Bayesian model averaged POCRM (BMA-POCRM) is formalized. BMA-POCRM uses Bayesian model averaging to take into account all possible orderings simultaneously, reducing the frequency of estimation incoherencies. We derive novel theoretical guarantees on the estimation coherency of the POCRM and BMA-POCRM. The effectiveness of BMA-POCRM in drug combination settings is demonstrated through a specific instance of estimate incoherency of POCRM and simulation studies. The results highlight the improved safety, accuracy, and reduced occurrence of estimate incoherency in trials applying the BMA-POCRM relative to the POCRM model.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase I as TopicModels, StatisticalBayes TheoremBiostatisticsDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansMaximum Tolerated Doseadaptive designBayesian inferenceincoherencemaximum tolerable dose

Identifiers

PMID41117171
PMCPMC12538209

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.