Statistical considerations when estimating time‐saving treatment effects in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Estimating treatment effects as time savings in disease progression may be more easily interpretable than assessing the absolute difference or a percentage reduction. In this study, we investigate the statistical considerations of the existing method for estimating time savings and propose alternative complementary methods. METHODS: We propose five alternative methods to estimate the time savings from different perspectives. These methods are applied to simulated clinical trial data that mimic or modify the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes progression trajectories observed in the Clarity AD lecanemab trial. RESULTS: Our study demonstrates that the proposed methods can generate more precise estimates by considering two crucial factors: (1) the absolute difference between treatment arms, and (2) the observed progression rate in the treatment arm. DISCUSSION: Quantifying treatment effects as time savings in disease progression offers distinct advantages. To provide comprehensive estimations, it is important to use various methods. HIGHLIGHTS: We explore the statistical considerations of the current method for estimating time savings. We proposed alternative methods that provide time savings estimations based on the observed absolute differences. By using various methods, a more comprehensive estimation of time savings can be achieved.
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 | 0.388 | 0.627 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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; 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".