Assessing the benefit–risk of new treatments using generalised pairwise comparisons: the case of erlotinib in pancreatic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety are the two considerations when characterising the effects of a new therapy. We sought to apply an innovative method of assessing the benefit-risk balance using data from a completed randomised controlled trial that compared erlotinib vs placebo added to gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (NCIC CTG PA.3). METHODS: We applied generalised pairwise comparisons with several prioritised outcome measures (e.g., one or more benefit outcomes and one or more risk outcomes). Here, the first priority outcome was overall survival (OS) time. Differences in OS that exceeded 2 months were considered clinically meaningful. The second priority outcome was toxicity. The overall treatment effect was quantified using the proportion in favour of erlotinib, which can be interpreted as the net proportion of patients who have a better overall outcome with erlotinib as compared with placebo. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In this trial 569 patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive gemcitabine plus either erlotinib or a matched placebo. Overall, the method indicated no statistically significant overall treatment effect in favour of erlotinib; if anything, the point estimate of the net proportion leaned in favour of the placebo group (overall proportion in favour of erlotinib=-3.6%, 95% CI, -14.2- 7.1%; P=0.51). The net proportion was never in favour of the erlotinib group throughout all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Generalised pairwise comparisons make it possible to assess the benefit-risk balance of new treatments using a single statistical test for any number of prioritised outcomes. The benefit-risk assessment was not in favour of adding erlotinib to gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.365 | 0.456 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".