The optimal design of clinical trials with potential biomarker effects: A novel computational approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a future trend of healthcare, personalized medicine tailors medical treatments to individual patients. It requires to identify a subset of patients with the best response to treatment. The subset can be defined by a biomarker (eg, expression of a gene) and its cutoff value. Topics on subset identification have received massive attention. There are over two million hits by keyword searches on Google Scholar. However, designing clinical trials that utilize the discovered uncertain subsets/biomarkers is not trivial and rarely discussed in the literature. This leads to a gap between research results and real-world drug development. To fill in this gap, we formulate the problem of clinical trial design into an optimization problem involving high-dimensional integration, and propose a novel computational solution based on Monte Carlo and smoothing methods. Our method utilizes the modern techniques of general purpose computing on graphics processing units for large-scale parallel computing. Compared to a published method in three-dimensional problems, our approach is more accurate and 133 times faster. This advantage increases when dimensionality increases. Our method is scalable to higher dimensional problems since the precision bound of our estimated study power is a finite number not affected by dimensionality. To design clinical trials incorporating the potential biomarkers, users can use our software "DesignCTPB". This software can be found on Github and will be available as an R package on CRAN. Although our research is motivated by the design of clinical trials, the method can be used widely to solve other optimization problems involving high-dimensional integration.
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 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 | 0.046 | 0.545 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads 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".