Dataset Information

The Burden of the "False-Negatives" in Clinical Development: Analyses of Current and Alternative Scenarios and Corrective Measures.

ABSTRACT: The "false-negatives" of clinical development are the effective treatments wrongly determined ineffective. Statistical errors leading to "false-negatives" are larger than those leading to "false-positives," especially in typically underpowered early-phase trials. In addition, "false-negatives" are usually eliminated from further testing, thereby limiting the information available on them. We simulated the impact of early-phase power on economic productivity in three developmental scenarios. Scenario 1, representing the current status quo, assumed 50% statistical power at phase II and 90% at phase III. Scenario 2 assumed increased power (80%), and Scenario 3, increased stringency of alpha (1%) at phase II. Scenario 2 led, on average, to a 60.4% increase in productivity and 52.4% increase in profit. Scenario 3 had no meaningful advantages. Our results suggest that additional costs incurred by increasing the power of phase II studies are offset by the increase in productivity. We discuss the implications of our results and propose corrective measures.

SUBMITTER: Burt T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6402187 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Burden of the "False-Negatives" in Clinical Development: Analyses of Current and Alternative Scenarios and Corrective Measures.

Burt T T Button K S KS Thom Hhz H Noveck R J RJ Munafò M R MR

Clinical and translational science 20170704 6

The "false-negatives" of clinical development are the effective treatments wrongly determined ineffective. Statistical errors leading to "false-negatives" are larger than those leading to "false-positives," especially in typically underpowered early-phase trials. In addition, "false-negatives" are usually eliminated from further testing, thereby limiting the information available on them. We simulated the impact of early-phase power on economic productivity in three developmental scenarios. Scen ...[more]

PMID: 28675646

Similar Datasets

Project description:In this study, we hypothesized that if the same deficit can be caused by damage to one or another part of a distributed neural system, then voxel-based analyses might miss critical lesion sites because preservation of each site will not be consistently associated with preserved function. The first part of our investigation used voxel-based multiple regression analyses of data from 359 right-handed stroke survivors to identify brain regions where lesion load is associated with picture naming abilities after factoring out variance related to object recognition, semantics and speech articulation so as to focus on deficits arising at the word retrieval level. A highly significant lesion-deficit relationship was identified in left temporal and frontal/premotor regions. Post-hoc analyses showed that damage to either of these sites caused the deficit of interest in less than half the affected patients (76/162 = 47%). After excluding all patients with damage to one or both of the identified regions, our second analysis revealed a new region, in the anterior part of the left putamen, which had not been previously detected because many patients had the deficit of interest after temporal or frontal damage that preserved the left putamen. The results illustrate how (i) false negative results arise when the same deficit can be caused by different lesion sites; (ii) some of the missed effects can be unveiled by adopting an iterative approach that systematically excludes patients with lesions to the areas identified in previous analyses, (iii) statistically significant voxel-based lesion-deficit mappings can be driven by a subset of patients; (iv) focal lesions to the identified regions are needed to determine whether the deficit of interest is the consequence of focal damage or much more extensive damage that includes the identified region; and, finally, (v) univariate voxel-based lesion-deficit mappings cannot, in isolation, be used to predict outcome in other patients.

Project description:Background Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has had an incomparable triumph in prenatal diagnostics in the last decade. Over 1400 research articles have been published, predominantly praising the advantages of this test. Methods The present study identified among the 1400 papers 24 original and one review paper, which were suited to re-evaluate the efficacy of > 750,000 published NIPT-results. Special attention was given to false-positive and false-negative result-rates. Those were discussed under different aspects—mainly from a patient-perspective. Results A 27: 1 rate of false-positive compared to false-negative NIPT results was found. Besides, according to all reported, real-positive, chromosomally aberrant NIPT cases, 90% of those would have been aborted spontaneously before birth. These findings are here discussed under aspects like (i) How efficient is NIPT compared to first trimester screening? (ii) What are the differences in expectations towards NIPT from specialists and the public? and (iii) There should also be children born suffering from not by NIPT tested chromosomal aberrations; why are those never reported in all available NIPT studies? Conclusions Even though much research has been published on NIPT, unbiased figures concerning NIPT and first trimester screening efficacy are yet not available. While false positive rates of different NIPT tests maybe halfway accurate, reported false-negative rates are most likely too low. The latter is as NIPT-cases with negative results for tested conditions are yet not in detail followed up for cases with other genetic or teratogenic caused disorders. This promotes an image in public, that NIPT is suited to replace all invasive tests, and also to solve the problem of inborn errors in humans, if not now then in near future. Overall, it is worth discussing the usefulness of NIPT in practical clinical application. Particularly, asking for unbiased figures concerning the efficacy of first trimester-screening compared to NIPT, and for really comprehensive data on false-positive and false-negative NIPT results. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13039-022-00612-2.

Dataset Information

The Burden of the "False-Negatives" in Clinical Development: Analyses of Current and Alternative Scenarios and Corrective Measures.

Publications

The Burden of the "False-Negatives" in Clinical Development: Analyses of Current and Alternative Scenarios and Corrective Measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets