
doi: 10.1002/sim.6566
pmid: 26112765
An important aim of drug trials is to characterize the dose–response relationship of a new compound. Such a relationship can often be described by a parametric (nonlinear) function that is monotone in dose. If such a model is fitted, it is useful to know the uncertainty of the fitted curve. It is well known that Wald confidence intervals are based on linear approximations and are often unsatisfactory in nonlinear models. Apart from incorrect coverage rates, they can be unreasonable in the sense that the lower confidence limit of the difference to placebo can be negative, even when an overall test shows a significant positive effect. Bootstrap confidence intervals solve many of the problems of the Wald confidence intervals but are computationally intensive and prone to undercoverage for small sample sizes. In this work, we propose a profile likelihood approach to compute confidence intervals for the dose–response curve. These confidence bounds have better coverage than Wald intervals and are more precise and generally faster than bootstrap methods. Moreover, if monotonicity is assumed, the profile likelihood approach takes this automatically into account. The approach is illustrated using a public dataset and simulations based on the Emax and sigmoid Emax models. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Nonlinear models, Profile likelihood, Clinical Trials as Topic, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Confidence intervals, Dose-finding, Nonlinear Dynamics, Percentile bootstrap, Sample Size, Confidence Intervals, Humans
Nonlinear models, Profile likelihood, Clinical Trials as Topic, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Confidence intervals, Dose-finding, Nonlinear Dynamics, Percentile bootstrap, Sample Size, Confidence Intervals, Humans
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
