A comparison of statistical methods for animal oncology studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In pre-clinical oncology studies, tumor-bearing animals are treated and observed over a period of time in order to measure and compare the efficacy of one or more cancer-intervention therapies along with a placebo/standard of care group. A data analysis is typically carried out by modeling and comparing tumor volumes, functions of tumor volumes, or survival. Data analysis on tumor volumes is complicated because animals under observation may be euthanized prior to the end of the study for one or more reasons, such as when an animal's tumor volume exceeds an upper threshold. In such a case, the tumor volume is missing not-at-random for the time remaining in the study. To work around the non-random missingness issue, several statistical methods have been proposed in the literature, including the rate of change in log tumor volume and partial area under the curve. In this work, an examination and comparison of the test size and statistical power of these and other popular methods for the analysis of tumor volume data is performed through realistic Monte Carlo computer simulations. The performance, advantages, and drawbacks of popular statistical methods for animal oncology studies are reported. The recommended methods are applied to a real data set.
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 | 0.086 | 0.240 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".