The Cross-Validated Adaptive Signature Design
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many anticancer therapies benefit only a subset of treated patients and may be overlooked by the traditional broad eligibility approach to design phase III clinical trials. New biotechnologies such as microarrays can be used to identify the patients that are most likely to benefit from anticancer therapies. However, due to the high-dimensional nature of the genomic data, developing a reliable classifier by the time the definitive phase III trail is designed may not be feasible. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Previously, Freidlin and Simon (Clinical Cancer Research, 2005) introduced the adaptive signature design that combines a prospective development of a sensitive patient classifier and a properly powered test for overall effect in a single pivotal trial. In this article, we propose a cross-validation extension of the adaptive signature design that optimizes the efficiency of both the classifier development and the validation components of the design. RESULTS: The new design is evaluated through simulations and is applied to data from a randomized breast cancer trial. CONCLUSION: The cross-validation approach is shown to considerably improve the performance of the adaptive signature design. We also describe approaches to the estimation of the treatment effect for the identified sensitive subpopulation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.071 | 0.490 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it