Magnitude of effect and sample size justification in trials supporting anti-cancer drug approval by the US Food and Drug Administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Approval of drugs is based on randomized trials observing statistically significant superiority of an experimental agent over a standard. Statistical significance results from a combination of effect size and sampling, with larger effect size more likely to translate to population effectiveness. We assess sample size justification in trials supporting cancer drug approvals. We identified US FDA anti-cancer drug approvals for solid tumors from 2015 to 2019. We extracted data on study characteristics, statistical plan, accrual, and outcomes. Observed power (Pobs) was calculated based on completed study characteristics and observed hazard ratio (HRobs). Studies were considered over-sampled if Pobs > expected with HRobs similar or worse than expected or if Pobs was similar to expected with HRobs worse than expected. We explored associations with over-sampling using logistic regression. Of 75 drug approvals (reporting 94 endpoints), 21% (20/94) were over-sampled. Over-sampling was associated with immunotherapy (OR: 5.5; p = 0.04) and associated quantitatively but not statistically with targeted therapy (OR: 3.0), open-label trials (OR: 2.5), and melanoma (OR: 4.6) and lung cancer (OR: 2.17) relative to breast cancer. Most cancer drug approvals are supported by trials with justified sample sizes. Approximately 1 in 5 endpoints are over-sampled; benefit observed may not translate to clinically meaningful real-world outcomes.
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 | 0.586 | 0.763 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".