MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171999085 · doi:10.1002/sim.1336

Improved up‐and‐down designs for phase I trials

2002· article· en· W2171999085 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

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsEstimatorIsotonic regressionMaximum tolerated doseSample size determinationStatisticsComputer scienceZero (linguistics)Sample (material)MathematicsClinical trialMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider several designs from the family of up-and-down rules for the sequential allocation of dose levels to subjects in a dose-response study. We show that an up-and-down design can be improved by using more information than the most recent response. For example, the k-in-a-row rule uses up to the k most recent responses. We introduce a new design, the Narayana rule, which uses a local estimate of the probability of toxicity calculated from all previous responses. For the Narayana rule, as the sample size gets large, the probability of assignment goes to zero for dose levels not among the two (or three) closest to the target. Different estimators of the target dose are compared. We find that the isotonic regression estimator is superior to other estimators for small to moderate sample sizes.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.577
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.577
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.797
GPT teacher head0.648
Teacher spread0.149 · 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