Investigation of the robustness of two models for assessing synergy in pre‐clinical drug combination studies
Abstract
Pre‐clinical studies may be used to screen for synergistic combinations of drugs. The types of in vitro assays used for this purpose will depend upon the disease area of interest. In oncology, one frequently used study measures cell line viability: cells placed into wells on a plate are treated with doses of two compounds, and cell viability is assessed from an optical density measurement corrected for blank well values. These measurements are often transformed and analysed as cell survival relative to untreated wells. The monotherapies are assumed to follow the Hill equation with lower and upper asymptotes at 0 and 1, respectively. Additionally, a common variance about the dose–response curve may be assumed. In this paper, we consider two models for incorporating synergy parameters. We investigate the effect of different models of biological variation on the assessment of synergy from both of these models. We show that estimates of the synergy parameters appear to be robust, even when estimates of the other model parameters are biased. Using untransformed measurements provides better coverage of the 95% confidence intervals for the synergy parameters than using transformed measurements, and the requirement to fit the upper asymptote does not cause difficulties. Assuming homoscedastic variances appears to be robust. The added complexity of determining and fitting an appropriate heteroscedastic model does not seem to be justified. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Models with homogeneity variance in the presence of heteroscedasticity are robust.
“However, Whitehead et al (2013) indicated that models with homogeneity variance in the presence of heteroscedasticity are robust.”
From Evaluation of Drug Combination Effect Using a Bliss Independence Dose–Response Surface Model (2018) · cites this paper as Whitehead et al (2013)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Analysis of drug combinations: current methodological landscape
Foucquier, J., & Guedj, M. (2015) · Pharmacology Research & Perspectives · doi:10.1002/prp2.149 · Cited by 1,115 · see citing works
Evaluation of Drug Combination Effect Using a Bliss Independence Dose–Response Surface Model
Liu, Q., Yin, X., Languino, L. R., & Altieri, D. C. (2018) · Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research · doi:10.1080/19466315.2018.1437071 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
- Authors
- Whitehead, A., Su, T., Thygesen, H., Sperrin, M., & Harbron, C.
- Affiliations
- Lancaster University (GB)
- St James's University Hospital (GB)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Whitehead, Anne
- Venue
- Pharmaceutical Statistics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-07-30
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 300-308
- ISSN
- 1539-1604 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-1612
- OpenAlex
- W2085334308
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 0.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pharmaceutical Statistics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council (MR/K006665/1, MC_PC_13042)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- drug synergy, Hill equation, cell viability, dose-response curves, heteroscedasticity, confidence interval coverage, model misspecification, cell survival
- MeSH terms
- Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Drug Synergism, Drug Therapy, Combination, Models, Biological
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review