Adaptive promising zone design for cancer immunotherapy with heterogeneous delayed treatment effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indirect mechanisms of cancer immunotherapies result in delayed treatment effects that vary among patients. Consequently, the use of the log-rank test in trial design and analysis can lead to significant power loss and pose additional challenges for interim decisions in adaptive designs. In this paper, we describe patients' survival using a piecewise proportional hazard model with random lag time and propose an adaptive promising zone design for cancer immunotherapy with heterogeneous delayed effects. We provide solutions for calculating conditional power and adjusting the critical value for the log-rank test with interim data. We divide the sample space into three zones - unfavourable, promising, and favourable -based on re-estimations of the survival parameters, the log-rank test statistic at the interim analysis, and the initial and maximum sample sizes. If the interim results fall into the promising zone, the sample size is increased; otherwise, it remains unchanged. We show through simulations that our proposed approach has greater overall power than the fixed sample design and similar power to the matched group sequential trial. Furthermore, we confirm that critical value adjustment effectively controls the type I error rate inflation. Finally, we provide recommendations on the implementation of our proposed method in cancer immunotherapy trials.
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 | 0.025 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; 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".