ACCOUNTING FOR BETWEEN‐STUDY VARIATION IN INCREMENTAL NET BENEFIT IN VALUE OF INFORMATION METHODOLOGY
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous applications of value of information methods for determining optimal sample size in randomized clinical trials have assumed no between-study variation in mean incremental net benefit. By adopting a hierarchical model, we provide a solution for determining optimal sample size with this assumption relaxed. The solution is illustrated with two examples from the literature. Expected net gain increases with increasing between-study variation, reflecting the increased uncertainty in incremental net benefit and reduced extent to which data are borrowed from previous evidence. Hence, a trial can become optimal where current evidence is sufficient assuming no between-study variation. However, despite the expected net gain increasing, the optimal sample size in the illustrated examples is relatively insensitive to the amount of between-study variation. Further percentage losses in expected net gain were small even when choosing sample sizes that reflected widely different between-study variation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it