MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968538911 · doi:10.1200/jco.2011.38.5732

Design Issues in Randomized Phase II/III Trials

2012· article· en· W1968538911 on OpenAlexaff
Edward L. Korn, Boris Freidlin, Jeffrey S. Abrams, Susan Halabi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicinePhase (matter)Selection (genetic algorithm)N of 1 trialClinical trialAccrualInternal medicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phase II trials are used to show sufficient preliminary activity of a new treatment (in single-arm designs or randomized screening designs) or to select among treatments with demonstrated activity (in randomized selection designs). The treatments prioritized in a phase II trial are then tested definitively against a control treatment in a randomized phase III trial. Randomized phase II/III trials use an adaptive trial design that combines these two types of trials in one, with potential gains in time and reduced numbers of patients required to be treated. Two key considerations in designing a phase II/III trial are whether to suspend accrual while the phase II data mature and the choice of phase II target treatment effect. We discuss these phase II/III design parameters, give examples of phase II/III trials, and provide recommendations concerning efficient phase II/III trial designs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.634
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.730
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6340.730
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0090.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.898
GPT teacher head0.753
Teacher spread0.146 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207