Impact of weighted composite compared to traditional composite endpoints for the design of randomized controlled trials
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
Composite endpoints are commonly used in cardiovascular clinical trials. When using a composite endpoint a subject is considered to have an event when the first component endpoint has occurred. The use of composite endpoints offers the ability to incorporate several clinically important endpoint events thereby augmenting the event rate and increasing statistical power for a given sample size. One assumption of the composite is that all component events are of equal clinical importance. This assumption is rarely achieved given the diversity of component endpoints included. One means of adjusting for this diversity is to adjust the outcomes using severity weights determined a priori. The use of a weighted endpoint also allows for the incorporation of multiple endpoints per patient. Although weighting the outcomes lowers the effective number of events, it offers additional information that reduces the variance of the estimate. We created a series of simulation studies to examine the effect on power as the individual components of a typical composite were changed. In one study, we noted that the weighted composite was able to offer discriminative power when the component outcomes were altered, while the traditional method was not. In the other study, we noted that the weighted composite offered a similar level of power to the traditional composite when the change was driven by the more severe endpoints.
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 | 0.457 | 0.930 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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