Researcher profile

Brian P. Hobbs

Brian P. Hobbs contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Unsupervised dense random survival forests identify interpretable patient profiles with heterogeneous treatment benefit

Precision oncology aims to prescribe the optimal cancer treatment to the right patients, maximizing therapeutic benefits. However, identifying patient subgroups that may benefit more from experimental cancer treatments based on randomized clinical trials presents a significant analytical challenge. To address this, we introduce a novel unsupervised machine learning approach based on very dense random survival forests (up to 100,000 trees), equipped with a new splitting rule that explicitly targets treatment-effect heterogeneity. This method is robust, interpretable, and effectively identifies responsive subgroups. Extensive simulations confirm its ability to detect heterogeneous patient responses and distinguish between datasets with and without heterogeneity, while maintaining a stringent Type I error rate of 1%. We further validate its performance using Phase III randomized clinical trial datasets, demonstrating significant patient heterogeneity in treatment response based on baseline characteristics.

preprint2020arXiv

A Survival Mediation Model with Bayesian Model Averaging

Determining the extent to which a patient is benefiting from cancer therapy is challenging. Criteria for quantifying the extent of "tumor response" observed within a few cycles of treatment have been established for various types of solid as well as hematologic malignancies. These measures comprise the primary endpoints of phase II trials. Regulatory approvals of new cancer therapies, however, are usually contingent upon the demonstration of superior overall survival with randomized evidence acquired with a phase III trial comparing the novel therapy to an appropriate standard of care treatment. With nearly two thirds of phase III oncology trials failing to achieve statistically significant results, researchers continue to refine and propose new surrogate endpoints. This article presents a Bayesian framework for studying relationships among treatment, patient subgroups, tumor response and survival. Combining classical components of mediation analysis with Bayesian model averaging (BMA), the methodology is robust to model mis-specification among various possible relationships among the observable entities. Posterior inference is demonstrated via application to a randomized controlled phase III trial in metastatic colorectal cancer. Moreover, the article details posterior predictive distributions of survival and statistical metrics for quantifying the extent of direct and indirect, or tumor response mediated, treatment effects.

preprint2020arXiv

Statistical design considerations for trials that study multiple indications

Breakthroughs in cancer biology have defined new research programs emphasizing the development of therapies that target specific pathways in tumor cells. Innovations in clinical trial design have followed with master protocols defined by inclusive eligibility criteria and evaluations of multiple therapies and/or histologies. Consequently, characterization of subpopulation heterogeneity has become central to the formulation and selection of a study design. However, this transition to master protocols has led to challenges in identifying the optimal trial design and proper calibration of hyperparameters. We often evaluate a range of null and alternative scenarios, however there has been little guidance on how to synthesize the potentially disparate recommendations for what may be optimal. This may lead to the selection of suboptimal designs and statistical methods that do not fully accommodate the subpopulation heterogeneity. This article proposes novel optimization criteria for calibrating and evaluating candidate statistical designs of master protocols in the presence of the potential for treatment effect heterogeneity among enrolled patient subpopulations. The framework is applied to demonstrate the statistical properties of conventional study designs when treatments offer heterogeneous benefit as well as identify optimal designs devised to monitor the potential for heterogeneity among patients with differing clinical indications using Bayesian modeling.