MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2115718839 · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.05.119

The Ethics of Early Stopping Rules

2005· letter· en· W2115718839 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph L. Pater, Paul E. Goss, Jame Ingle, Wendy Shelley, Lois E. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2 and as chair of the Data Safety Monitoring Committee for one of the trials (the Intergroup MA17 trial of letrozole) he criticizes, we are concerned that this article has the potential to impair significantly the conduct of future trials in breast cancer adjuvant endocrine therapy and consequently be harmful to patients.Our major issues with the article are: (1) Dr Cannistra repeats some of the misunderstandings about MA17 that we have previously addressed.3 Most important in this context is the implication that disease-free survival (DFS) was not the sole primary end point around which the study was designed and that the difference in DFS targeted was at a specific point in time, rather than, as was actually the case, a hazard ratio measured over time.(2) A one-size-fits-all approach to choosing end points in cancer clinical trials is wrong.The proper choice of end point is context (disease, stage, and therapy) -specific.DFS is an appropriate outcome in trials of endocrine therapy in early breast cancer.(3) The title and tone of the article implies that stopping MA17 "early" meant the goals of the trial had not been achieved because of the intervention of a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB).On the contrary, the study question was answered sooner than we expected because the treatment effect was larger than anticipated.(4) The value of Dr Cannistra's comments and recommendations regarding DSMB's are undermined by an apparent lack of familiarity with how these bodies function under the auspices of a National Cancer Institute cooperative group program.Because of their importance, we will expand briefly on points 2 and 4 in the following paragraphs: 2. Disease-free survival is commonly chosen as the end point of US Food and Drug Administration-and NCIapproved trials of adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer.We feel strongly that this is appropriate, not only because the accumulated experience to date suggests that DFS is a surrogate for overall survival in this setting, 4 but also because preventing breast cancer recurrence has value in itself.Women who suffer an in-breast recurrence often require the mastectomy their initial management was intended to avoid; women who develop new breast cancer repeat the trauma of their initial diagnosis and treatment; and women with distant recurrence inevitably die of their disease.Even in the absence of data that formally quantify

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)0.180
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.432
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1800.432
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0350.054
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.357 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEstrogen and related hormone effects→French-language works237,207→