An adaptive clinical trials procedure for a sensitive subgroup examined in the multiple sclerosis context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biomarker-adaptive threshold design (BATD) allows researchers to simultaneously study the efficacy of treatment in the overall group and to investigate the relationship between a hypothesized predictive biomarker and the treatment effect on the primary outcome. It was originally developed for survival outcomes for Phase III clinical trials where the biomarker of interest is measured on a continuous scale. In this paper, generalizations of the BATD to accommodate count biomarkers and outcomes are developed and then studied in the multiple sclerosis (MS) context where the number of relapses is a commonly used outcome. Through simulation studies, we find that the BATD has increased power compared with a traditional fixed procedure under varying scenarios for which there exists a sensitive patient subgroup. As an illustration, we apply the procedure for two hypothesized markers, baseline enhancing lesion count and disease duration at baseline, using data from a previously completed trial. MS duration appears to be a predictive marker relationship for this dataset, and the procedure indicates that the treatment effect is strongest for patients who have had MS for less than 7.8 years. The procedure holds promise of enhanced statistical power when the treatment effect is greatest in a sensitive patient subgroup.
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 | 0.225 | 0.340 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".