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

Meinhard Kieser

Meinhard Kieser contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Methodology

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
1topics
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)

preprint2022arXiv

Analysis and sample size calculation within the responder stratified exponential survival model

The primary endpoint in oncology is usually overall survival, where differences between therapies may only be observable after many years. To avoid withholding of a promising therapy, preliminary approval based on a surrogate endpoint is possible. The approval can be confirmed later by assessing overall survival within the same study. In these trials, the correlation between surrogate endpoint and overall survival has to be taken into account for sample size calculation and analysis. For a binary surrogate endpoint, this relation can be modeled by means of the responder stratified exponential survival (RSES) model proposed by Xia, Cui, and Yang (2014). We derive properties of the model and confidence intervals based on Maximum Likelihood estimators. Furthermore, we present an approximate and an exact test for survival difference. Type I error rate, power, and required sample size for both newly developed tests are determined exactly. These characteristics are compared to those of the logrank test. We show that the exact test performs best. The power of the logrank test is considerably lower in some situations. We conclude that the logrank test should not be used within the RSES model. The proposed method for sample size calculation works well. The interpretability of our proposed methods is discussed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Enhancing single-arm phase II trials by inclusion of matched control patients

When a novel treatment has successfully passed phase I, different options to design subsequent phase II trials are available. One approach is a single-arm trial, comparing the response rate in the intervention group against a fixed proportion. Another alternative is to conduct a randomized phase II trial, comparing the new treatment with placebo or the current standard. A significant problem arises in both approaches when the investigated patient population is very heterogeneous regarding prognostic factors. For the situation that a substantial dataset of historical controls exists, we propose an approach to enhance the classic single-arm trial design by including matched control patients. The outcome of the observed study population can be adjusted based on the matched controls with a comparable distribution of known confounders. We propose an adaptive two-stage design with the options of early stopping for futility and recalculation of the sample size taking the matching rate, number of matching partners, and observed treatment effect into account. The performance of the proposed design in terms of type I error rate, power, and expected sample size is investigated via simulation studies based on a hypothetical phase II trial investigating a novel therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

Sample size calculation and blinded recalculation for analysis of covariance models with multiple random covariates

When testing for superiority in a parallel-group setting with a continuous outcome, adjusting for covariates (e.g., baseline measurements) is usually recommended, in order to reduce bias and increase power. For this purpose, the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is frequently used, and recently, several exact and approximate sample size calculation procedures have been proposed. However, in case of multiple covariates, the planning might pose some practical challenges and surprising pitfalls, which have not been recognized so far. Moreover, since a considerable number of parameters have to be specified in advance, the risk of making erroneous initial assumptions, leading to substantially over- or underpowered studies, is increased. Therefore, we propose a method, which allows for re-estimating the sample size at a prespecified time point during the course of the trial. Extensive simulations for a broad range of settings, including unbalanced designs, confirm that the proposed method provides reliable results in many practically relevant situations. An advantage of the reassessment procedure is that it does not require unblinding of the data. In order to facilitate the application of the proposed method, we provide some R code and discuss a real-life data example.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access