Predicting animal to human translation: A proof of concept study using qualitative comparative analysis
Leenaars, C.; Teerenstra, S.; Meijboom, F.; Bleich, A.
Show abstract
Drug development suffers from high attrition rates; promising drug candidates fail in clinical trials. Low animal-to-human translation may impact attrition. We previously summarised published translational success rates, which varied from 0% to 100%. Based on analyses of individual factors, we could not predict translational success. Several approaches exist to analyse effects of combinations of potential predictors on an outcome. In biomedical research, regression analysis (RGA) is common. However, with RGA it is challenging to analyse multiple interactions and specific configurations ({approx} combinations) of variables, which could be highly relevant to translation. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is an approach based on set theory and Boolean algebra. It was successfully used to identify specific configurations of factors predicting an outcome in other fields. We reanalysed the data from our preceding review with a QCA. This QCA resulted in the following formula for successful translation: O_FD O_INLINEFIG[Formula 1]C_INLINEFIGM_FD(1)C_FD Which means that within the analysed dataset, the combination of relative recency ([~] means not; >1999), analyses at event or study level (not at intervention level), n<75, inclusion of more than one species and quantitative (instead of binary) analyses always resulted in successful translation (>85%). Other combinations of factors showed less consistent or negative results. An RGA on the same data did not identify any of the included variables as significant contributors. While these data were not collected with the QCA in mind, they illustrate that the approach is viable and relevant for this research field. The QCA seems a highly promising approach to furthering our knowledge on animal-to-human translation and decreasing attrition rates in drug development.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 95%
- A method of back-calculating the log odds ratio and standard error of the log odds ratio from the reported group-level risk of disease 95%
- Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- A cross-sectional audit and survey of Open Science and Data Sharing practices at The Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital 94%
- Taxonomy of interventions at academic institutions to improve research quality 92%
- Inflated citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Is artificial intelligence for medical professionals serving the patients? Protocol for a mixed method systematic review on patient-relevant benefits and harms of algorithmic decision-making 92%
- Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review 91%
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 95%
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 95%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.