qTPI: A quasi-toxicity probability interval design for phase I trials with multiple-grade toxicities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The common terminology criteria for adverse events by the National Cancer Institute has greatly facilitated the revolution of drug development and an increasing number of Phase I trials have started to collect multiple-grade toxicity endpoints. Appropriate and yet transparent Phase I statistical designs for multiple-grade toxicities are therefore in great needs. In this article, we propose a quasi-toxicity probability interval (qTPI) design that incorporates a quasi-continuous measure of the toxicity probability ([Formula: see text]) into the Bayesian theoretic framework of the interval based designs. Multiple-grade toxicity outcomes of each patient are mapped to [Formula: see text] according to a severity weight matrix. Dose–toxicity curve underlying the dosing decisions in the qTPI design is continuously updated using accumulating trial data. Numerical simulations investigating the operating characteristics of qTPI show that qTPI achieved better safety, accuracy and reliability compared to designs that rely on binary toxicity data. Furthermore, parameter elicitation in qTPI is simple and does not involve multiple hypothetical cohorts specification. Finally, a hypothetical soft tissue sarcoma trial with six toxicity types and grade 0 to grade 4 severity grades is illustrated with patient-by-patient dose allocation under the qTPI design.
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 | 0.338 | 0.966 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".