ArticleContemporary clinical trials2026
Bayesian two-sample survival probability curves with comparative summary measures and sensitivity analyses.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Two-sample survival probability curves (TSSPCs) provide a concise way to visualize treatment differences in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In this paper, we propose various area under the curve (AUC) metrics for TSSPCs as numerical measures for treatment effects. First, in the same spirit as the restricted mean survival time, we propose the restricted AUC (R-AUC) for the TSSPC. This metric can be estimated regardless of incomplete curve estimates caused by censoring and has a clear probabilistic interpretation. Additionally, we introduce sensitivity analysis measures, the worst- and best-case AUC (W-AUC and B-AUC), to represent extreme scenarios of the treatment effect beyond a specified restriction time point. We further propose to estimate the TSSPC and AUC measures using Bayesian models, and compare them against their counterparts derived from the Kaplan-Meier (KM) and Cox proportional hazards (PH) model frameworks. Using simulations and real oncology RCT data, we demonstrate that all methods perform well when the PH assumption holds. However, when the PH assumption is violated, the proposed Bayesian estimators outperform the Cox model in our simulations and data examples. Across all studied scenarios, the proposed person-period Bayesian approach offers flexibility comparable to the KM approach, while producing smoother curve estimates.
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.