跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接研究随机试验中的异质治疗效应检验,以及外部数据存在混杂时的有效性。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
B Ren
F Ferrari
S Fortini
S Ventz
L Trippa

利用外部数据检验随机临床试验中的生物标志物交互疗效

研究问题
实验治疗的收益若集中在某些亚组,如何利用外部临床数据提高随机试验检验功效,同时控制错误宣称疗效的概率?
方法与思路
作者提出试验完成后的置换检验,检验治疗在任何亚群中均不改善主要结局的原假设,并利用可用外部数据增强功效。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称检验在外部数据存在未测混杂或人群差异时仍控制第一类错误,并给出某项最优性标准及胶质母细胞瘤试验分析。
阅读关注点
应核对亚群与原假设的精确定义、外部数据进入置换程序的方式,以及错误率控制和所谓最优性各自依赖的条件。
阅读边界
仅据所给 Crossref 摘要,不能将对外部数据的宽松要求理解为完全无假设;最优性标准及功效增益幅度均未说明。

原文摘要

Summary In oncology the efficacy of novel therapeutics often differs across patient subgroups, and these variations are difficult to predict during the initial phases of the drug development process. The relation between the power of randomized clinical trials and heterogeneous treatment effects has been discussed by several authors. In particular, false negative results are likely to occur when the treatment effects concentrate in a subpopulation, but the study design did not account for potential heterogeneous treatment effects. The use of external data from completed clinical studies and electronic health records has the potential to improve decision-making throughout the development of new therapeutics, from early-stage trials to registration. Here we discuss the use of external data to evaluate experimental treatments with potential heterogeneous treatment effects. We introduce a permutation procedure to test, at the completion of a randomized clinical trial, the null hypothesis that the experimental therapy does not improve the primary outcomes in any subpopulation. The permutation test leverages the available external data to increase power. Also, the procedure controls the false positive rate at the desired $ \alpha $ level without restrictive assumptions on the external data, for example, in scenarios with unmeasured confounders, different pretreatment patient profiles in the trial population compared to the external data and other discrepancies between the trial and external data. We illustrate that the permutation test is optimal according to an interpretable criteria and discuss examples based on asymptotic results and simulations, followed by a retrospective analysis of individual patient-level data from a collection of glioblastoma clinical trials.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文