Bayesian Model Averaging Continual Reassessment Method in Phase I Clinical Trials
一期临床试验中基于贝叶斯模型平均的持续再评估法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:摘要研究临床试验剂量设计,未涉及所列经济计量领域细分。
一期临床试验中基于贝叶斯模型平均的持续再评估法AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
The continual reassessment method (CRM) is a popular dose-finding design for phase I clinical trials. This method requires that practitioners prespecify the toxicity probability at each dose. Such prespecification can be arbitrary, and different specifications of toxicity probabilities may lead to very different design properties. To overcome the arbitrariness and further enhance the robustness of the design, we propose using multiple parallel CRM models, each with a different set of prespecified toxicity probabilities. In the Bayesian paradigm, we assign a discrete probability mass to each CRM model as the prior model probability. The posterior probabilities of toxicity can be estimated by the Bayesian model averaging (BMA) approach. Dose escalation or deescalation is determined by comparing the target toxicity rate and the BMA estimates of the dose toxicity probabilities. We examine the properties of the BMA-CRM approach through extensive simulation studies, and also compare this new method and its variants with the original CRM. The results demonstrate that our BMA-CRM is competitive and robust, and eliminates the arbitrariness of the prespecification of toxicity probabilities.