MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116688526 · doi:10.1200/po-25-00507

Master Protocol Design With Hybrid Control for Efficient Early-Phase Trial Consolidation

2025· article· en· W7116688526 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Kaizer, Xiaojiang Zhan, Eric Barón, Rui Sammi Tang, David S. Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Precision Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Consolidation (business)Control (management)Hybrid systemBayesian probabilityControl system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Master protocols represent transformations, enabling multiple therapies or diseases under a single protocol. These designs streamline therapeutic development by reducing redundancies. Suited for evolving fields such as oncology and global emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic, master protocols have been exemplified by studies such as RECOVERY, Solidarity, and I-SPY 2, which accelerated effective treatment identification (with I-SPY 2 focused on molecular subtypes). Recent oncology examples, such as MORPHEUS, evaluate immunotherapy combinations with shared controls. Despite advantages, their application in early-phase oncology remains underutilized amid growing regulatory emphasis on randomization for robust evidence. METHODS: US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) initiatives, such as Project Optimus and Project FrontRunner, emphasize randomization in early-phase oncology trials. However, these initiatives pose challenges, including larger sample sizes, patient and physician reluctance to randomization, and high failure rates from poor accrual. To address these, this article adapts master protocol designs to consolidate early-phase trials for novel therapeutics sharing a common backbone therapy, integrating hybrid controls from published standard-of-care data to minimize randomization to the control arm. RESULTS: By consolidating trials under a shared standard-of-care control arm, the proposed master protocol design reduces total sample size by as much as 55% when compared with independent trials (with control arm sizes 2.4-2.9 times lower), lowers costs and duration, and enhances enrollment through reduced randomization to controls. Incorporating hybrid controls from prior studies and sharing information among arms with common background standard-of-care further improve efficiency, increasing power (reaching 90% overall) while controlling type I error rates acceptable levels. CONCLUSION: Master protocol designs with hybrid controls and Bayesian information sharing enable the efficient integration of randomization into early-phase oncology trials, enhancing efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and patient-centricity while aligning with FDA OCE initiatives.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.511
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.100 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Precision OncologySame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207