A Bayesian Adaptive Umbrella Trial Design with Robust Information Borrowing for Screening Multiple Combination Therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In immuno-oncology, developing combination therapies to overcome resistance to single agent or induce synergistic effects has become a new focus. To accelerate the screening process to identify promising combinations based on objective response rates, we propose a Bayesian adaptive Umbrella Trial design to simultaneously evaluate combinations of an investigational compound with different backbones, where information borrowing across combinations is allowed to increase trial efficiency. A robust borrowing approach is developed to strike a balance between borrowing and not borrowing by accounting for different configurations of homogeneity of treatment effects using Bayesian model averaging. Unlike existing methods that use the response rates to measure the degree of homogeneity by assuming all arms share a common control rate, an advantage of our approach is that it uses relative treatment effects to determine the degree of homogeneity by adjusting for different control effects across combinations. In the proposed design, Bayesian adaptive interim analyses are implemented to drop futile combinations and graduate early efficacious combinations. Simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed design with robust information borrowing outperforms some existing approaches. It improves power when treatment effects are homogeneous and maintains reasonable arm-wise Type I error rates when heterogeneity is present across combinations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.286 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".