MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997783552 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.l.00094

Adaptive Bayesian Randomized Trials: Realizing Their Potential

2012· article· en· W1997783552 on OpenAlexaff
Eleanor Pullenayegum

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Bayesian probabilityComputer scienceSample size determinationAdaptive designRandomized controlled trialResearch designEarly stoppingClinical trialMachine learningRisk analysis (engineering)Artificial intelligenceStatisticsMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bayesian adaptive designs offer the flexibility to adapt the conduct of a trial in response to accumulating evidence. This ability of the trial to adapt is especially appealing when studying an intervention that evolves rapidly. Examples of design adaptations include dropping arms from a study, sample size re-estimation, or stopping a trial early. The choice of adaptive design must match the objectives of the trial, and this paper gives examples of designs suitable for exploratory trials, explanatory trials, and trials assessing cost-effectiveness.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.111
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.319
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1110.319
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.645
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.138 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207