Clinical Trials for New Drug Development: Optimal Investment and Application
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
Phase III clinical trials are expensive and require enrolling and treating hundreds or thousands of patients at many sites. The time and cost required to do so are uncertain, as is the economic value of the drug upon completion. We consider the problem of determining when and how many test sites should be opened and the rate at which patients should be recruited. We model the problem as a discrete time, discounted dynamic program with the objective of maximizing the expected net present value of a drug based on the costs of conducting the trial and on the drug’s quality-moderated likelihood of approval and its subsequent expected revenue stream if approved. We show the optimal policy is characterized by a series of thresholds on the number of patients enrolled over time that indicate when additional test centers should be opened and how many patients should be targeted. We demonstrate using data from completed clinical trials that for low- to moderate-valued drugs, these thresholds are relevant to the firm’s decisions. We extend the problem to the case with multiple interim analyses and demonstrate that optimizing the clinical trial capacity and its utilization provides significant value in addition to the option value of stopping the trial early. The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2017.0616 .
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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