↓ Skip to main content

Bayesian Optimal Interval Design: A Simple and Well-Performing Design for Phase I Oncology Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Cancer Research, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bayesian Optimal Interval Design: A Simple and Well-Performing Design for Phase I Oncology Trials
Published in
Clinical Cancer Research, August 2016
DOI 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-0592
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ying Yuan, Kenneth R. Hess, Susan G. Hilsenbeck, Mark R. Gilbert

Abstract

Despite more than two decades of publications that offer more innovative model-based designs, the classical 3+3 design remains the most dominant phase I trial design in practice. In this article, we introduce a new trial design, the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design. The BOIN design is easy to implement in a way similar to the 3+3 design, but is more flexible for choosing the target toxicity rate and cohort size and yields a substantially better performance that is comparable to that of more complex model-based designs. The BOIN design contains the 3+3 design and the accelerated titration design as special cases, thus linking it to established phase I approaches. A numerical study shows that the BOIN design generally outperforms the 3+3 design and the modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) design. The BOIN design is more likely than the 3+3 design to correctly select the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and allocate more patients to the MTD. Compared to the mTPI design, the BOIN design has a substantially lower risk of overdosing patients and generally a higher probability of correctly selecting the MTD. User-friendly software is freely available to facilitate the application of the BOIN design.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 24%
Other 21 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Master 8 6%
Professor 7 6%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 28 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 29%
Mathematics 20 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 34 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 June 2022.
All research outputs
#2,185,275
of 21,479,159 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Cancer Research
#1,803
of 12,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,095
of 273,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Cancer Research
#38
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,479,159 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.