Great Wall: A Generalized Dose Optimization Design for Drug Combination Trials Maximizing Survival Benefit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most phase I-II drug-combination trial designs assume that selecting the optimal dose combination based on early outcomes will also lead to maximum long-term survival benefits. However, this assumption is often violated in many clinical studies, generally due to high rates of relapse following the initial response. To address this problem, we propose the Great Wall design, a general dose optimization design for drug-combination trials. The Great Wall design employs a "divide-and-conquer" algorithm to address the issue of partial order of toxicity and uses early outcomes to eliminate dose combinations that are excessively toxic or less efficacious. It utilizes a dose randomization approach to construct a candidate set of the promising dose combinations balancing the toxicity and early efficacy outcomes. The patients assigned to the candidate set are followed to collect the survival outcomes and the final optimal dose combination is then selected to maximize the survival benefit. The simulation studies confirm the desirable operating characteristics of the Great Wall design under various clinical settings. R codes are also provided to facilitate the application. The Great Wall design is modular and practically useful in settings where investigators plan to follow patients long enough to assess survival outcomes.
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 | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".