Benchmarking progression-free survival ratio as primary endpoint in precision oncology clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Progression Free Survival Ratio (PFSratio), as defined as the ratio between PFS on investigational treatment (PFS2) and PFS on the last prior therapy (PFS1), is a popular endpoint in precision oncology (PO) studies. In this work, five methodologies for PFSratio-based trial analysis (count-based, Kaplan Meier, Kernel-based Kaplan Meier, parametric and midrank) and two for trial design (GBVE and Weibull) are benchmarked. The Kernel-based Kaplan Meier analysis is most recommended, as it handles informative censoring and does not require PFS1/PFS2 distribution assumptions. Sample size and power calculation methods perform best when applied to settings with expected high PFS1/PFS2 correlation and median ratio. Analysis of five clinical trials (MOSCATO 01, WINTHER, MASTER, SHIVA and POG570) from >800 patients revealed an overall weak PFS1/PFS2 correlation (Kendall’s τ range 0.17-0.35), and an asymptotically unbiased median S PFSratio ( δ =1.3) = 33% by means of the Kernel-based analysis, while other methods considerably deviated in studies with censoring rate>10%. This methodology is implemented in the PROPHETS R package and Shiny app.
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 | 0.259 | 0.449 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".