Bayesian Dose-Finding in Two Treatment Cycles Based on the Joint Utility of Efficacy and Toxicity
基于疗效与毒性联合效用的两周期贝叶斯剂量探索AI 解读 ↓
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。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究临床试验的贝叶斯剂量决策,未明确涉及所列计量领域的因果识别或结构估计。
基于疗效与毒性联合效用的两周期贝叶斯剂量探索AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Juhee Lee, Peter F. Thall, Yuan Ji & Peter MüllerJuhee Lee, Department of Statistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 (E-mail: ).Peter F. Thall, Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77230-1402 (E-mail: ).Yuan Ji, Center for Clinical and Research Informatics, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL 60201 (E-mail: ).Peter Müller, Department of Mathematics, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 (E-mail: ).Yuan Ji’s research is supported by NIH R01/NCI CA132897. Peter Thall’s research was supported by NIH/NCI R01 CA 83932 and NIH/NCI 5 P50 CA140388. Peter Müller’s research was supported by NIH/NCI R01 CA157458-01A1.This article proposes a phase I/II clinical trial design for adaptively and dynamically optimizing each patient’s dose in each of two cycles of therapy based on the joint binary efficacy and toxicity outcomes in each cycle. A dose-outcome model is assumed that includes a Bayesian hierarchical latent variable structure to induce association among the outcomes and also facilitate posterior computation. Doses are chosen in each cycle based on posteriors of a model-based objective function, similar to a reinforcement learning or Q-learning function, defined in terms of numerical utilities of the joint outcomes in each cycle. For each patient, the procedure outputs a sequence of two actions, one for each cycle, with each action being the decision to either treat the patient at a chosen dose or not to treat. The cycle 2 action depends on the individual patient’s cycle 1 dose and outcomes. In addition, decisions are based on posterior inference using other patients’ data, and therefore, the proposed method is adaptive both within and between patients. A simulation study of the method is presented, including comparison to two-cycle extensions of the conventional 3 + 3 algorithm, continual reassessment method, and a Bayesian model-based design, and evaluation of robustness. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.