Dose finding studies for therapies with late‐onset toxicities: A comparison study of designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An objective of phase I dose-finding trials is to find the maximum tolerated dose; the dose with a particular risk of toxicity. Frequently, this risk is assessed across the first cycle of therapy. However, in oncology, a course of treatment frequently consists of multiple cycles of therapy. In many cases, the overall risk of toxicity for a given treatment is not fully encapsulated by observations from the first cycle, and hence it is advantageous to include toxicity outcomes from later cycles in phase I trials. Extending the follow up period in a trial naturally extends the total length of the trial which is undesirable. We present a comparison of eight methods that incorporate late onset toxicities while not extensively extending the trial length. We conduct simulation studies over a number of scenarios and in two settings; the first setting with minimal stopping rules and the second setting with a full set of standard stopping rules expected in such a dose finding study. We find that the model-based approaches in general outperform the model-assisted approaches, with an interval censored approach and a modified version of the time-to-event continual reassessment method giving the most promising overall performance in terms of correct selections and trial length. Further recommendations are made for the implementation of such methods.
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 | 0.144 | 0.303 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".