Application of Group Sequential Methods to the 2-in-1 Design and Its Extensions for Interim Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2-in-1 adaptive design (Chen et al. 2018) allows seamless expansion of an ongoing Phase 2 trial into a Phase 3 trial to expedite a drug development program. Under a mild assumption expected to generally hold in practice, as Slepian’s lemma guarantees, the trial can be tested at the full alpha level with or without expansion, sacrificing no statistical power. The endpoint used for expansion decisions can be the same as or different from the primary endpoints, and there is no restriction on the expansion threshold. Due to its flexibility and robustness, it has drawn immediate attention from academic researchers and industry practitioners. The design has been substantially extended in the literature and successfully implemented in multiple trials.Group sequential methods are a cornerstone in trial monitoring. A preliminary investigation (Chen, Li, and Deng) suggests that it can be naturally incorporated into the 2-in-1 design without providing formal mathematical proof. In this article, we fill the gap by providing a sufficient condition that is expected to generally hold in practice to unlock the full potential of the 2-in-1 design and pave the way for its broader applications. In practice, the condition can be verified with trial data as needed using simulation studies per the FDA guideline on adaptive designs. We also discuss a special case that guarantees the validity without the need for any simulation checking.
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 | 0.068 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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; 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".