REVIEW 1 cited by
What Were They Thinking? Pharmacologic priors implicit in a choice of 3+3 dose-escalation design
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original 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.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Dose-Escalation Trial Protocols that Extend Naturally to Admit Titration
A categorical preorder on trial tallies reveals a new monotonicity flaw in the 3+3 dose-escalation design and yields right Kan and Galois extensions that support titration.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.