MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019370408 · doi:10.1080/00949650412331299102

On binary longitudinal mixed models in adaptive clinical trials

2005· article· en· W2019370408 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Statistical Computation and Simulation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsRandom effects modelLongitudinal dataAdaptive designStatisticsLongitudinal studyEstimationRepeated measures designMixed modelSet (abstract data type)Clinical trialBinary numberTreatment effectBinary dataFixed effects modelEconometricsComputer scienceMedicinePanel dataData miningMeta-analysisArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an adaptive clinical trial research, it is common to use data dependent design weights to assign individuals to treatments so that more study subjects are assigned to a better treatment. These design weights must be exploited for the consistent estimation of the treatment effect. In an adaptive longitudinal clinical set-up, the repeated responses of an individual will, however, be affected by the design weights as well as individual random effects and certain fixed time effects. In this article, we provide an estimation approach that takes the variability of the individual random effects and the longitudinal correlations of the repeated responses into account, and produces consistent and efficient estimate for the treatment effect. The performance of this approach is examined through a simulation study.

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 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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.784
GPT teacher head0.646
Teacher spread0.139 · 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