Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phase I dose escalation trials in oncology generally aim to find the maximum tolerated dose. However, with the advent of molecular-targeted therapies and antibody drug conjugates, dose-limiting toxicities are less frequently observed, giving rise to the concept of optimal biological dose (OBD), which considers both efficacy and toxicity. The estimand framework presented in the addendum of the ICH E9(R1) guidelines strengthens the dialogue between different stakeholders by bringing in greater clarity in the clinical trial objectives and by providing alignment between the targeted estimand under consideration and the statistical analysis methods. However, there is a lack of clarity in implementing this framework in early-phase dose optimization studies. This paper aims to discuss the estimand framework for dose optimization trials in oncology, considering efficacy and toxicity through utility functions. Such trials should include pharmacokinetics data, toxicity data, and efficacy data. Based on these data, the analysis methods used to identify the optimized dose/s are also described. Focusing on optimizing the utility function to estimate the OBD, the population-level summary measure should reflect only the properties used for estimating this utility function. A detailed strategy recommendation for intercurrent events has been provided using a real-life oncology case study. Key recommendations regarding the estimand attributes include that in a seamless phase I/II dose optimization trial, the treatment attribute should start when the subject receives the first dose. We argue that such a framework brings in additional clarity to dose optimization trial objectives and strengthens the understanding of the drug under consideration, which would enable the correct dose to move to phase II of clinical development.
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 | 0.213 | 0.391 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".