اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدUsing public clinical trial reports to evaluate observational study methods
216
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Observational studies are valuable for estimating the effects of various medical interventions, but are notoriously difficult to evaluate because the methods used in observational studies require many untestable assumptions. This lack of verifiability makes it difficult both to compare different observational study methods and to trust the results of any particular observational study. In this work, we propose TrialVerify, a new approach for evaluating observational study methods based on ground truth sourced from clinical trial reports. We process trial reports into a denoised collection of known causal relationships that can then be used to estimate the precision and recall of various observational study methods. We then use TrialVerify to evaluate multiple observational study methods in terms of their ability to identify the known causal relationships from a large national insurance claims dataset. We found that inverse propensity score weighting is an effective approach for accurately reproducing known causal relationships and outperforms other observational study methods. TrialVerify is made freely available for others to evaluate observational study methods.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Nowadays, more and more clinical trials choose combinational agents as the intervention to achieve better therapeutic responses. However, dose-finding for combinational agents is much more complicated than single agent as the full order of combinatio
n dose toxicity is unknown. Therefore, regular phase I designs are not able to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of combinational agents. Motivated by such needs, plenty of novel phase I clinical trial designs for combinational agents were proposed. With so many available designs, research that compare their performances, explore parameters impacts, and provide recommendations is very limited. Therefore, we conducted a simulation study to evaluate multiple phase I designs that proposed to identify single MTD for combinational agents under various scenarios. We also explored influences of different design parameters. In the end, we summarized the pros and cons of each design, and provided a general guideline in design selection.
The best evidence concerning comparative treatment effectiveness comes from clinical trials, the results of which are reported in unstructured articles. Medical experts must manually extract information from articles to inform decision-making, which
is time-consuming and expensive. Here we consider the end-to-end task of both (a) extracting treatments and outcomes from full-text articles describing clinical trials (entity identification) and, (b) inferring the reported results for the former with respect to the latter (relation extraction). We introduce new data for this task, and evaluate models that have recently achieved state-of-the-art results on similar tasks in Natural Language Processing. We then propose a new method motivated by how trial results are typically presented that outperforms these purely data-driven baselines. Finally, we run a fielded evaluation of the model with a non-profit seeking to identify existing drugs that might be re-purposed for cancer, showing the potential utility of end-to-end evidence extraction systems.
Adaptive designs for clinical trials permit alterations to a study in response to accumulating data in order to make trials more flexible, ethical and efficient. These benefits are achieved while preserving the integrity and validity of the trial, th
rough the pre-specification and proper adjustment for the possible alterations during the course of the trial. Despite much research in the statistical literature highlighting the potential advantages of adaptive designs over traditional fixed designs, the uptake of such methods in clinical research has been slow. One major reason for this is that different adaptations to trial designs, as well as their advantages and limitations, remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical community. The aim of this paper is to clarify where adaptive designs can be used to address specific questions of scientific interest; we introduce the main features of adaptive designs and commonly used terminology, highlighting their utility and pitfalls, and illustrate their use through case studies of adaptive trials ranging from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory Phase III studies.
In October 2014, the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) reclassified hydrocodone from Schedule III to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, resulting in a prohibition on refills in the initial prescription. While this schedule change was associ
ated with overall decreases in the rate of filled hydrocodone prescriptions and opioid dispensing, available studies conflict regarding its impact on acute opioid prescribing among surgical patients. Here, we present the rationale and design of a planned study to measure the effect of hydrocodone rescheduling using a difference-in-differences design that leverages anticipated variation in the relative impact of this policy on patients treated by surgeons that more or less frequently prescribed hydrocodone products versus other opioids prior to the schedule change. Additionally, we present findings from preliminary study conducted on a subset of our full planned sample to assess for potential differences in outcome trends over the 3 years prior to rescheduling among patients treated by surgeons who commonly prescribed hydrocodone versus those treated by surgeons who rarely prescribed hydrocodone.
A utility-based Bayesian population finding (BaPoFi) method was proposed by Morita and Muller (2017, Biometrics, 1355-1365) to analyze data from a randomized clinical trial with the aim of identifying good predictive baseline covariates for optimizin
g the target population for a future study. The approach casts the population finding process as a formal decision problem together with a flexible probability model using a random forest to define a regression mean function. BaPoFi is constructed to handle a single continuous or binary outcome variable. In this paper, we develop BaPoFi-TTE as an extension of the earlier approach for clinically important cases of time-to-event (TTE) data with censoring, and also accounting for a toxicity outcome. We model the association of TTE data with baseline covariates using a semi-parametric failure time model with a Polya tree prior for an unknown error term and a random forest for a flexible regression mean function. We define a utility function that addresses a trade-off between efficacy and toxicity as one of the important clinical considerations for population finding. We examine the operating characteristics of the proposed method in extensive simulation studies. For illustration, we apply the proposed method to data from a randomized oncology clinical trial. Concerns in a preliminary analysis of the same data based on a parametric model motivated the proposed more general approach.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
