MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972625246 · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100446

Minimizing control group allocation in randomized trials using dynamic borrowing of external control data – An application to second line therapy for non-small cell lung cancer

2019· article· en· W2972625246 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

VenueContemporary Clinical Trials Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLung cancerControl (management)Randomized controlled trialMedicineOncologyComputer scienceInternal medicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Enrollment of participants to control arms in clinical trials can be challenging. This is particularly an issue in oncology trials where the standard-of-care is shifting rapidly and several promising experimental treatments are undergoing phase III testing. Novel methods for utilizing external control data may mitigate these challenges, but applied examples are sparse. Here, we therefore illustrate how Bayesian dynamic borrowing of external individual patient level control data from similar clinical trials can often reduce randomization to the control intervention without substantially trading-off precision. We further explore which types of scenarios yield viable trade-offs, and which do not. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We obtained individual patient data on patients being treated with second-line therapy for non-small cell lung cancer from Project Data Sphere with minimal in/exclusion criteria restrictions, and applied Bayesian hierarchical models with uninformative priors to generate illustrative synthetic control groups. RESULTS: Four phase III clinical trials were identified and utilized in our analysis. Even when studies which are knowingly incongruent with one another are selected to generate a synthetic control, the nature of this methodology minimizes improper borrowing from historical data. The use of a small concurrent control group within a trial greatly reduces penalized selection, and our results demonstrate the ability to reduce allocation to the control group by up to 80% with a minimal increase in uncertainty when closely matched historical data is available. CONCLUSION: Dynamic borrowing using Bayesian hierarchical models with uninformative priors represents a novel approach to utilizing external controls for comparative estimates using single arm evidence.

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)0.220
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.299
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2200.299
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.720
GPT teacher head0.626
Teacher spread0.095 · 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