Comparative Study of Outcome Measures and Analysis Methods for Traumatic Brain Injury Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Batteries of functional and cognitive measures have been proposed as alternatives to the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) as the primary outcome for traumatic brain injury (TBI) trials. We evaluated several approaches to analyzing GOSE and a battery of four functional and cognitive measures. Using data from a randomized trial, we created a "super" dataset of 16,550 subjects from patients with complete data (n=331) and then simulated multiple treatment effects across multiple outcome measures. Patients were sampled with replacement (bootstrapping) to generate 10,000 samples for each treatment effect (n=400 patients/group). The percentage of samples where the null hypothesis was rejected estimates the power. All analytic techniques had appropriate rates of type I error (≤5%). Accounting for baseline prognosis either by using sliding dichotomy for GOSE or using regression-based methods substantially increased the power over the corresponding analysis without accounting for prognosis. Analyzing GOSE using multivariate proportional odds regression or analyzing the four-outcome battery with regression-based adjustments had the highest power, assuming equal treatment effect across all components. Analyzing GOSE using a fixed dichotomy provided the lowest power for both unadjusted and regression-adjusted analyses. We assumed an equal treatment effect for all measures. This may not be true in an actual clinical trial. Accounting for baseline prognosis is critical to attaining high power in Phase III TBI trials. The choice of primary outcome for future trials should be guided by power, the domain of brain function that an intervention is likely to impact, and the feasibility of collecting outcome data.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.466 | 0.647 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".