Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42446164›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2026

Frequentist Identification of Effective Baskets via the Generalized Information Criteria in Oncology Phase 2 Trials.

Shunya Tanaka, Ryota Ohara, Satoshi Hattori

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Shunya TanakaDepartment of Biomedical Statistics, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Osaka, Osaka, Japan.
Ryota OharaDepartment of Biomedical Statistics, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Osaka, Osaka, Japan.
Satoshi HattoriDepartment of Biomedical Statistics, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Osaka, Osaka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0200-1408

Funding

Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Technology of Japan 25K03086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many molecular-targeted oncology drugs have been successfully developed. The mechanism to target some specific molecules gives us the expectation that the molecular-target drug is effective over multiple tumor types and histologies. Then, simultaneous evaluation of multiple subtypes is motivated, and the basket trials aim to realize it, in which each subtype is called a basket. Although the single-arm design with simple exact binomial inference is routinely used for Phase 2 trials in standard oncology drug development, almost all recent proposals of statistical methods for basket trials are Bayesian methods of complexity. To fill the gap, the one-sample Mantel-Haenszel procedure was developed, which consists of the exact test of the global null hypothesis, the Mantel-Haenszel-type estimation of the treatment effect, and identification of effective baskets via the generalized information criterion (GIC). This paper points out an undesirable feature of the GIC in the previous research and develops an alternative one. The new GIC is free of the undesirable feature and more efficiently borrows information across baskets, which is a relevant feature for basket trials. Through numerical studies, we demonstrate that the new GIC outperforms the original one.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicNeoplasmsBayes TheoremComputer SimulationHumansModels, StatisticalMolecular Targeted TherapyAntineoplastic Agentsdual consistencygeneralized information criterionone‐sample Mantel‐Haenszel estimator

Identifiers

PMID42446164
PMCPMC13367034

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.