Health Utility Adjusted Survival: a Composite Endpoint for Clinical Trial Designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract Many randomized trials have used overall survival as the primary endpoint for establishing non-inferiority of one treatment compared to another. However, if a treatment is non-inferior to another treatment in terms of overall survival, clinicians may be interested in further exploring which treatment results in better health utility scores for patients. Examining health utility in a secondary analysis is feasible, however, since health utility is not the primary endpoint, it is usually not considered in the sample size calculation, hence the power to detect a difference of health utility is not guaranteed. Furthermore, often the premise of non-inferiority trials is to test the assumption that an intervention provides superior quality of life or toxicity profile without compromising the survival when compared to the existing standard. Based on this consideration, it may be beneficial to consider both survival and utility when designing a trial. There have been methods that can combine survival and quality of life into a single measure, but they either have strong restrictions or lack theoretical frameworks. In this manuscript, we propose a method called HUS (Health Utility adjusted Survival), which can combine survival outcome and longitudinal utility measures for treatment comparison. We propose an innovative statistical framework as well as procedures to conduct power analysis and sample size calculation. By comprehensive simulation studies involving summary statistics from the PET-NECK trial, 1 we demonstrate that our new approach can achieve superior power performance using relatively small sample sizes, and our composite endpoint can be considered as an alternative to overall survival in future clinical trial design and analysis where both survival and health utility are of interest.
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 | 0.323 | 0.452 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; 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".