ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2025
Bayesian model averaging for partial ordering continual reassessment methods.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.