“Threshold‐crossing”: A Useful Way to Establish the Counterfactual in Clinical Trials?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A central question in the assessment of benefit/harm of new treatments is: how does the average outcome on the new treatment (the factual) compare to the average outcome had patients received no treatment or a different treatment known to be effective (the counterfactual)? Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the standard for comparing the factual with the counterfactual. Recent developments necessitate and enable a new way of determining the counterfactual for some new medicines. For select situations, we propose a new framework for evidence generation, which we call "threshold-crossing." This framework leverages the wealth of information that is becoming available from completed RCTs and from real world data sources. Relying on formalized procedures, information gleaned from these data is used to estimate the counterfactual, enabling efficacy assessment of new drugs. We propose future (research) activities to enable "threshold-crossing" for carefully selected products and indications in which RCTs are not feasible.
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 | 0.560 | 0.738 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| 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".