Chauhan Weighted Trajectory Analysis Reduces Sample Size Requirements and Expedites Time-to-Efficacy Signals in Advanced Cancer Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: As Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis is limited to single unidirectional endpoints, most advanced cancer randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are powered for either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). This discards efficacy information carried by partial responses, complete responses, and stable disease that frequently precede progressive disease and death. Chauhan Weighted Trajectory Analysis (CWTA) is a generalization of KM that simultaneously assesses multiple rank-ordered endpoints. We hypothesized that CWTA could use this efficacy information to reduce sample size requirements and expedite efficacy signals in advanced cancer trials. (2) Methods: We performed 100-fold and 1000-fold simulations of solid tumor systemic therapy RCTs with health statuses rank-ordered from complete response (Stage 0) to death (Stage 4). At increments of the sample size and hazard ratio, we compared KM PFS and OS with CWTA for (i) sample size requirements to achieve a power of 0.8 and (ii) the time to first significant efficacy signal. (3) Results: CWTA consistently demonstrated greater power, and it reduced the sample size requirements by 18% to 35% compared to KM PFS and 14% to 20% compared to KM OS. CWTA also expedited time-to-efficacy signals by 2- to 6-fold. (4) Conclusions: CWTA, by incorporating all efficacy signals in the cancer treatment trajectory, provides a clinically relevant reduction in the required sample size and meaningfully expedites the efficacy signals of cancer treatments compared to KM PFS and KM OS. Using CWTA rather than KM as the primary trial outcome has the potential to meaningfully reduce the numbers of patients, trial duration, and costs to evaluate therapies in advanced cancer.
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 | 0.089 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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; 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".