Cited by 6Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsOptimal Experimental Design MethodsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Investigation of the robustness of two models for assessing synergy in pre‐clinical drug combination studies

Whitehead, Anne, Su, Ting‐Li, Thygesen, Helene, Sperrin, Matthew, Harbron, Chris·2013·Pharmaceutical Statistics

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

Crossref · 10.1002/pst.1583

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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