MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985549752 · doi:10.1080/07474946.2010.487416

Sequential Methods in Multi-Arm Clinical Trials

2010· article· en· W1985549752 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSequential Analysis · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian probabilityClinical trialIdentification (biology)Process (computing)Computer scienceEarly stoppingMathematicsEconometricsMachine learningRisk analysis (engineering)StatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this overview article, I will focus on adaptive designs in “learn” clinical studies, the exploratory phase of the drug development process designed and carried out in order to establish drug efficacy and dose-response relationships. These designs directly address the goals of the learn-phase trial with respect to identification of dose to carry forward in the confirmatory phase, estimation of likelihood of success in confirmatory trial, and efficient early stopping for efficacy or for futility. A critical component of these designs is the dose-response model for efficacy and/or safety endpoints that capture prior information about the form and location of the clinically important dose response relationship. An additional ingredient in the Bayesian approach is a prior distribution for unknown parameters. Efficiency is gained by appropriate incorporation of longitudinal models that allow the efficient use of all available information.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.410
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.410
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.860
GPT teacher head0.734
Teacher spread0.126 · 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