ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2026
Some Common Dose-Exposure-Response Estimands and Conditions for Their Causal Identifiability.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Some Common Dose-Exposure-Response Estimands and Conditions for Their Causal Identifiability.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exposure-response analyses are central to dose selection in drug development. The estimand framework, formalized in ICH E9(R1) regulatory guidance, provides a structured approach to define scientific objectives with precision. We apply the estimand framework to dose-exposure-response analyses. For simulated example studies inspired by real-world scenarios, we define dose-response estimands of clinical interest. The estimands are formalized using the potential outcome notation. Assumptions on the setup of the studies and the relation between treatment, exposure and response are expressed as a directed acyclic graph (DAG). The estimand is transformed using the assumption into expressions to identify the estimand based on the observed data. Three types of expressions are obtained. First, a pooled dose-exposure-response (DER) analysis that corresponds to a standard DER analysis as executed for many projects. Second, a pooled, covariate adjusted dose-response (DR) analysis, and third summaries of the outcomes in each randomized cohort. In our example, DER provides more precise estimates than DR as judged by the mean square error (MSE) of repeated simulation estimation. This work advances methodological rigor in DER analyses by integrating with causal inference methodologies and the estimand framework, enabling clearer interpretation of modeling assumptions and results. This has important concrete advantages. We obtain different estimation methods for the same estimand that may be compared to validate them. The potential for bias in the different estimation methods can be formally assessed. The proposed approach provides a generalizable strategy to improve exposure-response analyses for dose selection, particularly when the relevant evidence includes data from multiple studies.
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.