The current state of Bayesian methods in nonclinical pharmaceutical statistics: Survey results and recommendations from the <scp>DIA</scp>/<scp>ASA‐BIOP</scp> Nonclinical Bayesian Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of Bayesian methods to support pharmaceutical product development has grown in recent years. In clinical statistics, the drive to provide faster access for patients to medical treatments has led to a heightened focus by industry and regulatory authorities on innovative clinical trial designs, including those that apply Bayesian methods. In nonclinical statistics, Bayesian applications have also made advances. However, they have been embraced far more slowly in the nonclinical area than in the clinical counterpart. In this article, we explore some of the reasons for this slower rate of adoption. We also present the results of a survey conducted for the purpose of understanding the current state of Bayesian application in nonclinical areas and for identifying areas of priority for the DIA/ASA-BIOP Nonclinical Bayesian Working Group. The survey explored current usage, hurdles, perceptions, and training needs for Bayesian methods among nonclinical statisticians. Based on the survey results, a set of recommendations is provided to help guide the future advancement of Bayesian applications in nonclinical pharmaceutical statistics.
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 | 0.218 | 0.395 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".