BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Dominic Magirr

Dominic Magirr contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyApplications

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
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

5 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

How to interpret hazard ratios

The hazard ratio, typically estimated using Cox's famous proportional hazards model, is the most common effect measure used to describe the association or effect of a covariate on a time-to-event outcome. In recent years the hazard ratio has been argued by some to lack a causal interpretation, even in randomised trials, and even if the proportional hazards assumption holds. This is concerning, not least due to the ubiquity of hazard ratios in analyses of time-to-event data. We review these criticisms, describe how we think hazard ratios should be interpreted, and argue that they retain a valid causal interpretation. Nevertheless, alternative measures may be preferable to describe effects of exposures or treatments on time-to-event outcomes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On model-based time trend adjustments in platform trials with non-concurrent controls

Platform trials can evaluate the efficacy of several treatments compared to a control. The number of treatments is not fixed, as arms may be added or removed as the trial progresses. Platform trials are more efficient than independent parallel-group trials because of using shared control groups. For arms entering the trial later, not all patients in the control group are randomised concurrently. The control group is then divided into concurrent and non-concurrent controls. Using non-concurrent controls (NCC) can improve the trial's efficiency, but can introduce bias due to time trends. We focus on a platform trial with two treatment arms and a common control arm. Assuming that the second treatment arm is added later, we assess the robustness of model-based approaches to adjust for time trends when using NCC. We consider approaches where time trends are modeled as linear or as a step function, with steps at times where arms enter or leave the trial. For trials with continuous or binary outcomes, we investigate the type 1 error (t1e) rate and power of testing the efficacy of the newly added arm under a range of scenarios. In addition to scenarios where time trends are equal across arms, we investigate settings with trends that are different or not additive in the model scale. A step function model fitted on data from all arms gives increased power while controlling the t1e, as long as the time trends are equal for the different arms and additive on the model scale. This holds even if the trend's shape deviates from a step function if block randomisation is used. But if trends differ between arms or are not additive on the model scale, t1e control may be lost. The efficiency gained by using step function models to incorporate NCC can outweigh potential biases. However, the specifics of the trial, plausibility of different time trends, and robustness of results should be considered

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Stratified modestly-weighted log-rank tests in settings with an anticipated delayed separation of survival curves

Delayed separation of survival curves is a common occurrence in confirmatory studies in immuno-oncology. Many novel statistical methods that aim to efficiently capture potential long-term survival improvements have been proposed in recent years. However, the vast majority do not consider stratification, which is a major limitation considering that most (if not all) large confirmatory studies currently employ a stratified primary analysis. In this article, we combine recently proposed weighted log-rank tests that have been designed to work well under a delayed separation of survival curves, with stratification by a baseline variable. The aim is to increase the efficiency of the test when the stratifying variable is highly prognostic for survival. As there are many potential ways to combine the two techniques, we compare several possibilities in an extensive simulation study. We also apply the techniques retrospectively to two recent randomized clinical trials.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Non-proportional hazards in immuno-oncology: is an old perspective needed?

A fundamental concept in two-arm non-parametric survival analysis is the comparison of observed versus expected numbers of events on one of the treatment arms (the choice of which arm is arbitrary), where the expectation is taken assuming that the true survival curves in the two arms are identical. This concept is at the heart of the counting-process theory that provides a rigorous basis for methods such as the log-rank test. It is natural, therefore, to maintain this perspective when extending the log-rank test to deal with non-proportional hazards, for example by considering a weighted sum of the "observed - expected" terms, where larger weights are given to time periods where the hazard ratio is expected to favour the experimental treatment. In doing so, however, one may stumble across some rather subtle issues, related to the difficulty in ascribing a causal interpretation to hazard ratios, that may lead to strange conclusions. An alternative approach is to view non-parametric survival comparisons as permutation tests. With this perspective, one can easily improve on the efficiency of the log-rank test, whilst thoroughly controlling the false positive rate. In particular, for the field of immuno-oncology, where researchers often anticipate a delayed treatment effect, sample sizes could be substantially reduced without loss of power.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Adaptive Survival Trials

Mid-study design modifications are becoming increasingly accepted in confirmatory clinical trials, so long as appropriate methods are applied such that error rates are controlled. It is therefore unfortunate that the important case of time-to-event endpoints is not easily handled by the standard theory. We analyze current methods that allow design modifications to be based on the full interim data, i.e., not only the observed event times but also secondary endpoint and safety data from patients who are yet to have an event. We show that the final test statistic may ignore a substantial subset of the observed event times. Since it is the data corresponding to the earliest recruited patients that is ignored, this neglect becomes egregious when there is specific interest in learning about long-term survival. An alternative test incorporating all event times is proposed, where a conservative assumption is made in order to guarantee type I error control. We examine the properties of our proposed approach using the example of a clinical trial comparing two cancer therapies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access