Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Cure Rate Joint Model for Time-to-Event Data and Longitudinal Tumor Burden with Potential Change Points

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Separating the never-rebound group sharpens tumor-regrowth timing estimates.

desk verdict A careful extension of the authors' own change-point joint model, with a serious data-provenance ambiguity in the application that must be resolved before the clinical claims are taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18773 v1 pith:RJT7F5B3 submitted 2025-07-24 stat.ME stat.AP

Yixiang Qu , Ethan M. Alt , Weibin Zhong , Jeen Liu , Chenguang Wang , Joseph G. Ibrahim This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEstat.AP MSC 62P1062N0162F10
keywords cureratemodeljointchangepointtumorburdentime-to-eventMCEMpartiallytruncatedmultivariatenormalnon-smallcelllungcancer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a joint statistical model for two types of data in cancer trials: longitudinal tumor burden and time to progression or death. It separates patients into a stable group, whose tumor burden steadily declines, and a change-point group, whose tumor burden first shrinks and then later grows. For the change-point group, the event time is used to bound the individual change point rather than the other way around. Simulations show that when a stable subgroup exists, this mixture estimates the marginal tumor-burden trajectory with low bias and near-95% coverage, while a change-point-only model becomes increasingly biased as the stable fraction grows. Applied to a non-small-cell lung cancer trial, it estimates that cemiplimab delays the average tumor rebound and slows the post-rebound growth rate relative to chemotherapy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the partially truncated multivariate normal distribution for the random effects of the change-point group, $f_{R|T}(r_i|t^*_i) \propto \varphi_4(r_i|\mu_r, \Sigma_r) \, I(0 < \omega_i \le e^{t^*_i})$. It encodes the biological constraint that a patient's turnaround point $\omega_i$ precedes the possibly latent progression time, and it is exactly the object the Monte Carlo E-step samples from when event times are censored. Around it, a log-normal accelerated failure time model supplies the event-time distribution, a piecewise linear mixed model supplies the longitudinal trajectory, and the marginal estimand $E[y|s,\theta] = \pi_{(s)}\,\mu_{(s)}(s) + (1-\pi_{(s)})\,\mu_{(cp)}(s)$ turns the fitted mixture into a population-level tumor-burden curve. The M-step uses closed forms for the cure rate, regression coefficients, and variances, and L-BFGS on a Cholesky-reparameterized covariance for the random effects.

What would settle it

Generate the same simulations with event times drawn from a Weibull distribution while the fitted model keeps its log-normal event-time assumption; if the marginal tumor-burden trajectory's 95% coverage falls substantially below nominal at late follow-up, the model's claimed accuracy depends on the assumed event-time distribution rather than on the cure-rate structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a cure-rate mixture of a stable group and a change-point group is the right structure for tumor-burden trajectories in oncology trials, with each change point constrained to precede the disease-progression event. Longitudinal tumor burden is modeled by a piecewise linear mixed model with random intercept, pre-slope, post-slope, and random change point; the change point is restricted to $(0, e^{t^*_i})$ through a partially truncated multivariate normal distribution, and the event time follows a log-normal accelerated failure time model. Estimation uses Monte Carlo EM with closed-form updates for most parameters and L-BFGS for the random-effects mean and covariance. In simulations with stable proportions $\pi_{(s)} = 0.2$ and $0.4$, the full model keeps low bias and 95% coverage while a change-point-only model shows increasing bias and reduced coverage. In the application, the estimated overall change point is later for cemiplimab (0.556 years) than for chemotherapy (0.301 years), and the post-change slope is slower (0.091 vs 0.31).

Load-bearing premise

The model's load-bearing premise is that a progressing patient's true progression time is log-normal and that, given that time, the moment of tumor rebound follows the truncated normal shape the model assumes; if real tumors rebound on a different schedule, the censored patients are misweighted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When a stable subgroup exists, a change-point-only model misattributes stable patients to the change-point group, so its parameter bias grows and its coverage falls as $\pi_{(s)}$ increases; the full mixture avoids this.
  • For censored patients, the time-to-event model supplies an upper bound on the latent change point, so rebound timing is estimated even when the rebound itself is never observed.
  • The marginal tumor-burden trajectory, the estimand of primary interest, is estimated with low bias and near-nominal coverage even when the pre- and post-slope difference is small, though individual parameters may be harder to identify.
  • In the EMPOWER application, cemiplimab is estimated to delay the overall change point (0.556 vs 0.301 years) and slow post-rebound growth (0.091 vs 0.31) relative to chemotherapy, with treatment differences separating after about 121 days.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is to apply the same stable-versus-change-point mixture to other longitudinal biomarkers with a non-responding subset, such as PSA in prostate cancer, where the mixture would protect trajectory estimates from patients who never rebound.
  • The model's estimated probability of stable-group membership for each censored patient could be used as a patient-level durable-response classifier, a use the paper does not itself develop.
  • A Weibull or semiparametric event-time baseline would reveal how much of the trajectory accuracy is carried by the log-normal assumption, which the paper flags as a limitation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a cure-rate joint model for longitudinal tumor burden (TB) and time-to-event data in oncology trials. The population is partitioned into a stable ('cured') group, modeled with a linear mixed model, and a change-point group, modeled with a piecewise linear mixed model with an individual-specific change point that is constrained to occur before the log event time. A log-normal AFT model is used for the event time, and the random effects (including the change point) are assumed to follow a partially truncated multivariate normal distribution. Estimation is performed with a Monte Carlo EM algorithm, with closed-form M-step updates for most parameters and L-BFGS for the random-effect mean/covariance. The paper reports simulations comparing the full model to a change-point-only model [16] and an application to a subset of the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial comparing cemiplimab to chemotherapy.

Significance. If the modeling framework is accepted, the paper makes a useful methodological contribution: it extends the reverse-conditional joint model of [16] to accommodate a stable/cured subgroup, provides a complete MCEM implementation with closed-form updates and publicly available code, and frames the target of inference through the estimand lens by focusing on marginal TB trajectories. The supplement contains detailed derivations and proofs for the E-step identities. However, the current evidence base is narrower than the paper's claims: the simulations only demonstrate internal consistency under the assumed parametric family, and the real-data application is clouded by conflicting statements about whether the EMPOWER subset is real or simulated. These issues currently limit the external validity claims made for the method.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Figures 1-2, Section 6] Section 2 states that the Kaplan-Meier curves and TB trajectories use 'a subset from the real data' (a random 400 of 710 EMPOWER subjects) and that 'actual figures from the trial cannot be disclosed,' yet the captions of Figures 1 and 2 label the displays as a 'simulated EMPOWER study.' Section 6 then applies the model to 'the subset of the EMPOWER study mentioned in Section 2' and reports treatment-arm change points, slopes, and PD-L1 subgroup trends as clinical findings, with the abstract claiming application to a Phase 3 NSCLC trial. These statements are internally inconsistent. If the subset is synthetic, Section 6 is a simulation presented as a real-data analysis, so the confidence intervals in Table 2 and the clinical conclusions do not support the stated external-validity claim; if it is real, the 'simulated' captions and the nondisclosure statement need correction. This ambiguity is load-bearing because the paper's central clinical utility claim depends directly on the provenance of the EMPOWER subset.
  2. [Section 5.1] The simulation section contains two related internal inconsistencies that undermine the reproducibility of the reported results. First, the symbol ωi is used both for a standard normal covariate in the AFT model ('We generate ωi with a standard normal distribution') and for the subject-specific change point in the PTMVN random effects in the same paragraph; the model in Section 3.2.2 uses w_i for the AFT covariate, so the simulation text should use w_i or another symbol. Second, the longitudinal outcome for the change-point group is written as 'yij ∼ N(xiβ1 + b0i + b1i(sij−ωi) + b2i(sij−ωi), σ2y)', which omits the indicator functions I(sij≤ωi) and I(sij>ωi) that define the piecewise model in Section 3.2.3; as written, both pre- and post-slopes apply at every visit time. Please correct these errors and clarify the data-generating algorithm.
  3. [Section 5.2] The simulation study generates data from the same parametric family the model assumes: log-normal AFT event times, PTMVN random effects, and piecewise linear longitudinal outcomes. The claim in Section 5.2 that the full model 'consistently maintains low bias and meets the 95% coverage target' is therefore a demonstration of internal consistency, not robustness. The comparison against the change-point-only model [16] is a comparison against a nested special case (π(s)=0) that is misspecified whenever the true π(s)>0, so the full model's superior performance is expected by construction. The paper should temper the 'robust' language and, ideally, add a misspecification scenario (e.g., Weibull event times or a different joint distribution for ω and survival) to assess the sensitivity of the change-point and trajectory estimates.
  4. [Section 4] The MCEM algorithm is central to estimation, but the manuscript does not specify the Monte Carlo sample size J used in the E-step (e.g., a fixed value, an increasing schedule with EM iterations, or a choice rule based on Monte Carlo error) or the convergence criterion for the EM iterations. Algorithm 1 takes J as an input, and the supplement describes sampling J draws, but the main text and supplement do not report how J was chosen for the simulations and the application. Without this information, the parameter estimates, the bootstrap confidence intervals in Table 2, and the trajectory CIs are not fully reproducible from the text alone.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2.3] The sentence 'ri = (ωi,bT i )T denotes the random effects for subject i who does not experience a change point' should read '...who experiences a change point' (or '...in the change-point group').
  2. [Section 5.2] The definition 'Bias = B−1|PB b=1(ˆθb−θ)|' appears to take the absolute value of the average bias rather than the average absolute bias; please clarify which quantity is reported, as this affects interpretation of the results.
  3. [Figure 4] Figure 4 is very dense, with three panels and multiple scenarios; the 'X' marks indicating absent parameters are easy to overlook, and the figure would benefit from a legend or notes clarifying the meaning of the X marks.
  4. [Section 6] In the subgroup analysis, the sample sizes (147, 120, 133) sum to 400, but it is not stated how these subgroups relate to the random 400-subject subset or whether any patients were excluded; please clarify the subgroup definitions.
  5. [Section 4.4] The notation E[y|s,θ] uses s for the scalar time point, while s_i is used for the vector of visit times in Section 3.1; a different symbol (e.g., s_new or t) would avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the model's predictions and simulation comparisons are legitimate plug-in and comparative procedures, with self-citations only to standard building blocks.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain and found no step in which a claimed prediction or first-principles result is equivalent to its own input by construction. Equation (4) is derived explicitly as the model-implied marginal mean E[y|s,theta] = pi(s) mu_(s)(s) + (1-pi(s)) mu_(cp)(s), and Algorithm 1 computes that same model expectation by Monte Carlo; this is a standard plug-in estimand, not an independent forecast, and the paper does not present it as an external validation. The simulation study generates data from the same model class and then checks bias and coverage; this is a conventional self-consistency check, not a circular reduction, because the estimands being evaluated are the model parameters and marginal trajectory, not quantities defined by the fitting procedure. The comparison to the change-point-only model [16] is a comparison to a special case (pi(s)=0) under data-generating settings with pi(s)>0; the superiority of the full model under those settings is a designed consequence of correct specification, not a result imported from a self-citation. The PTMVN conditional formulas cited from [Alt et al., 2025] are standard multivariate normal conditioning results used inside the E-step; they are not the paper's central claim and the paper provides its own proofs for the main Monte Carlo identities (Propositions 1 and 2 in the Supplementary Note). The 'overall change point' and slopes in Section 6.1 of the Supplement are descriptive summaries of the fitted marginal trajectory, obtained by fitting a piecewise linear curve to E[y|s,theta]; this is a reparametrization of the model output, not a separate prediction, so it does not constitute circularity. I also noted the internal inconsistency between the text calling the EMPOWER subset 'real data' and figure captions calling the same display 'simulated'; that is a provenance/transparency concern for correctness, but it is not a circularity reduction and does not affect the derivation-chain analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical or biological entities. The stable group is a latent class, and the PTMVN distribution is imported from the authors' prior work [16]. All listed items are model assumptions or fitted parameters that the central trajectory claim depends on.

free parameters (4)
  • π(s) (stable/cured proportion) = estimated from data
    Updated in M-step as n^{-1} Σ_i (1-ν_i) E[Δ_i]; directly weights the mixture in the marginal trajectory (Eq. 4).
  • µr and Σr (random effects moments, change-point group) = estimated via L-BFGS with box constraints
    Define the PTMVN truncation and the trajectory formula; these fitted values appear in Algorithm 1.
  • γ, σ²_tte (AFT parameters) = estimated in closed form
    Censored-event sampling in the E-step and Algorithm 1 draws t from N(w̄ᵀγ, σ²_tte), so trajectories depend on these fits.
  • MCEM Monte Carlo size J = not reported
    Both the E-step and Algorithm 1 require sampling J realizations; absent a value, the stochastic error of the estimator is unquantified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Random effects in the change-point group follow a partially truncated multivariate normal: fR|T(ri|t*) ∝ φ4(ri|µr, Σr) I(0<ω≤e^{t*})
    Section 3.2.3; the whole E-step and trajectory estimation rely on this joint distribution. If the true dependence of the change point on survival differs, estimates of ω and the trajectory will be biased.
  • domain assumption Event times follow a log-normal AFT model: t*_i = w_i^T γ + ε_tte,i with ε ~ N(0, σ²_tte).
    Section 3.2.2; the paper acknowledges in Discussion that this may not align with real-world data.
  • domain assumption Stable-group longitudinal outcomes follow a linear mixed model with no change point.
    Section 3.2.1; if a 'stable' patient can later show a change point after censoring, the mixture is misspecified, but the model assumes stable patients are not at risk.
  • domain assumption Censoring and visit times are independent of the outcomes given covariates and random effects (MAR-type assumption).
    The observed likelihood ignores the missing-data mechanism; the simulation generates visit times independently, and the paper does not discuss informative visit processes.
  • domain assumption The baseline covariate X is constant and averageable via X̄; for time-varying covariates, imputation would be needed.
    Section 4.4; in the application only baseline measurements are used, which the paper acknowledges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cure Rate Joint Model for Time-to-Event Data and Longitudinal Tumor Burden with Potential Change Points." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJT7F5B3

@misc{pith2026250718773,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cure Rate Joint Model for Time-to-Event Data and Longitudinal Tumor Burden with Potential Change Points},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJT7F5B3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18773}
}
read the original abstract

In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) clinical trials, tumor burden (TB) is a key longitudinal biomarker for assessing treatment effects. Typically, standard-of-care (SOC) therapies and some novel interventions initially decrease TB; however, many patients subsequently experience an increase-indicating disease progression-while others show a continuous decline. In patients with an eventual TB increase, the change point marks the onset of progression and must occur before the time of the event. To capture these distinct dynamics, we propose a novel joint model that integrates time-to-event and longitudinal TB data, classifying patients into a change-point group or a stable group. For the change-point group, our approach flexibly estimates an individualized change point by leveraging time-to-event information. We use a Monte Carlo Expectation-Maximization (MCEM) algorithm for efficient parameter estimation. Simulation studies demonstrate that our model outperforms traditional approaches by accurately capturing diverse disease progression patterns and handling censoring complexities, leading to robust marginal TB outcome estimates. When applied to a Phase 3 NSCLC trial comparing cemiplimab monotherapy to SOC, the treatment group shows prolonged TB reduction and consistently lower TB over time, highlighting the clinical utility of our approach. The implementation code is publicly available on https://github.com/quyixiang/JoCuR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18773 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier curve for the two arms in the simulated EMPOWER study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Longitudinal trajectories of TB among two arms in the simulated EMPOWER study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A simple diagram to represent the three types of data in our dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluations for Parameter Estimations and Longitudinal Trajectory Estimations Under Different Scenarios ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: The longitudinal trajectories for both arms, with the vertical dashed line indicating the time point where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evaluations for Parameter Estimations and Longitudinal Trajectory Estimations Under Different Scenarios ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evaluations for Parameter Estimations and Longitudinal Trajectory Estimations Under Different Scenarios ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_2.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Jointly modeling time-to-event and longitudinal data with individual-specific change points: A case study in modeling tumor burden

    Ethan M Alt, Yixiang Qu, Emily Meghan Damone, Jing-ou Liu, Chenguang Wang, and Joseph G Ibrahim. Jointly modeling time-to-event and longitudinal data with individual-specific change points: A case study in modeling tumor burden. Statistics in Medicine , 44(5):e70021, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Food and Drug Administration

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration . Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics . Technical report, U.S. Food and Drug Administration , 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    Bayesian joint modelling of longitudinal and time to event data: a methodological review

    Maha Alsefri, Maria Sudell, Marta Garc \' a-Fi \ n ana, and Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona. Bayesian joint modelling of longitudinal and time to event data: a methodological review. BMC medical research methodology , 20:1--17, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Modelling the association between biomarkers and clinical outcome: An introduction to nonlinear joint models

    Marion Kerioui, Julie Bertrand, Ren \'e Bruno, Fran c ois Mercier, J \'e r \'e mie Guedj, and Sol \`e ne Desm \'e e. Modelling the association between biomarkers and clinical outcome: An introduction to nonlinear joint models. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology , 88(4):1452--1463, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    A joint model for survival and longitudinal data measured with error

    Michael S Wulfsohn and Anastasios A Tsiatis. A joint model for survival and longitudinal data measured with error. Biometrics , pages 330--339, 1997

    work page 1997

  6. [5]

    Joint modeling of survival and longitudinal data: likelihood approach revisited

    Fushing Hsieh, Yi-Kuan Tseng, and Jane-Ling Wang. Joint modeling of survival and longitudinal data: likelihood approach revisited. Biometrics , 62(4):1037--1043, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [6]

    Joint modeling of longitudinal and survival data

    Michael J Crowther, Keith R Abrams, and Paul C Lambert. Joint modeling of longitudinal and survival data. The Stata Journal , 13(1):165--184, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [7]

    Joint longitudinal and time-to-event models for multilevel hierarchical data

    Samuel L Brilleman, Michael J Crowther, Margarita Moreno-Betancur, Jacqueline Buros Novik, James Dunyak, Nidal Al-Huniti, Robert Fox, Jeff Hammerbacher, and Rory Wolfe. Joint longitudinal and time-to-event models for multilevel hierarchical data. Statistical Methods in Medical Research , 28(12):3502--3515, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 21 references
  1. [8]

    Using the saem algorithm for mechanistic joint models characterizing the relationship between nonlinear psa kinetics and survival in prostate cancer patients

    Sol \`e ne Desm \'e e, France Mentr \'e , Christine Veyrat-Follet, Bernard S \'e bastien, and J \'e r \'e mie Guedj. Using the saem algorithm for mechanistic joint models characterizing the relationship between nonlinear psa kinetics and survival in prostate cancer patients. B...

    2017

  2. [9]

    Matthews

    Ardo van den Hout, Graciela Muniz-Terrera, and Fiona E. Matthews. Change point models for cognitive tests using semi-parametric maximum likelihood. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 57(1):684--698, January 2013

    2013

  3. [10]

    Pedersen, and Juni Palmgren

    Annica Dominicus, Samuli Ripatti, Nancy L. Pedersen, and Juni Palmgren. A random change point model for assessing variability in repeated measures of cognitive function. Statistics in medicine , 27(27):5786--5798, November 2008

    2008

  4. [11]

    Carlin, and Alan E

    Nicholas Lange, Bradley P. Carlin, and Alan E. Gelfand. Hierarchical Bayes Models for the Progression of HIV Infection Using Longitudinal CD4 T - Cell Numbers . Journal of the American Statistical Association , 87(419):615--626, 1992

    1992

  5. [12]

    Kiuchi, J

    Amy S. Kiuchi, J. A. Hartigan, Theodore R. Holford, Pablo Rubinstein, and Cladd E. Stevens. Change Points in the Series of T4 Counts Prior to AIDS . Biometrics , 51(1):236--248, 1995

    1995

  6. [13]

    Brilleman, Laura D

    Samuel L. Brilleman, Laura D. Howe, Rory Wolfe, and Kate Tilling. Bayesian Piecewise Linear Mixed Models With a Random Change Point : An Application to BMI Rebound in Childhood . Epidemiology , 28(6):827, November 2017

    2017

  7. [14]

    Change-point joint model for identification of plateau of activity in early phase trials

    Maria-Athina Altzerinakou and Xavier Paoletti. Change-point joint model for identification of plateau of activity in early phase trials. Statistics in Medicine , 40(9):2113--2138, 2021

    2021

  8. [15]

    Joint modeling of survival time and longitudinal data with subject-specific changepoints in the covariates

    Jean de Dieu Tapsoba, Shen-Ming Lee, and CY Wang. Joint modeling of survival time and longitudinal data with subject-specific changepoints in the covariates. Statistics in medicine , 30(3):232--249, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    u m \"u s , Igor Bondarenko, Mustafa \

    Ahmet Sezer, Saadettin Kilickap, Mahmut G \"u m \"u s , Igor Bondarenko, Mustafa \"O zg \"u ro g lu, Miranda Gogishvili, Haci M Turk, Irfan Cicin, Dmitry Bentsion, Oleg Gladkov, et al. Cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with ...

    2021

  10. [18]

    The estimands framework: a primer on the ich e9 (r1) addendum

    Brennan C Kahan, Joanna Hindley, Mark Edwards, Suzie Cro, and Tim P Morris. The estimands framework: a primer on the ich e9 (r1) addendum. bmj , 384, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Food and Drug Administration

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration . E9(R1) Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials: Addendum on Estimands and Sensitivity Analysis in Clinical Trials to the Guideline on Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials . Technical report, U.S. Food and Drug Administration , 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Regulation and function of the pd-l1 checkpoint

    Chong Sun, Riccardo Mezzadra, and Ton N Schumacher. Regulation and function of the pd-l1 checkpoint. Immunity , 48(3):434--452, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.