HackerPapers

arXiv:2012.05301stat.ME

What Were They Thinking? Pharmacologic priors implicit in a choice of 3+3 dose-escalation design

David C. Norris

HN submission. Found in a submission link or body. Submitters do not count as commenters in the main ranking; a submission is not an endorsement.

Abstract

If explicit, formal consideration of clinical pharmacology at all informs the design and conduct of modern oncology dose-finding trials, the designs themselves hardly attest to this. Yet in conducting a trial, investigators affirm that they hold reasonable expectations of participant safety - expectations that necessarily depend on beliefs about how certain pharmacologic parameters are distributed in the study population. Thus, these beliefs are implicit in a trial's presumed conformance to a community standard of safety, and may therefore to some extent be reverse-engineered from trial designs. For one popular form of dose-escalation trial design, I demonstrate here how this may be done.

arXiv comments
5 pages, 3 figures, 1 table, 13 references with added hyperlinks. Version 2 restores to the exhibit on page 2 a DCG clause which v1 had mistakenly cropped; additionally, footnote 6 is expanded and a few minor typographical or grammatical improvements are made
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
stat.MEMethodology (Statistics) q-bio.QMQuantitative Methods stat.APApplications (Statistics)

On Hacker News

No comments linking this paper were found in the collected sources. Found in 1 HN submission from Dec 2020 to Dec 2020. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments0 threads

No comments linking this paper were found in the collected sources. Open submission discussions.

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.