MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024918973 · doi:10.1081/bip-100102502

ON THE TIMING OF A FUTILITY ANALYSIS IN CLINICAL TRIALS

2000· article· en· W2024918973 on OpenAlexaff
Allan Pallay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
FundersVirginia Commonwealth University
KeywordsInterimInterim analysisClinical trialMedicineEarly stoppingMedical physicsStatisticsActuarial scienceComputer scienceMathematicsInternal medicineLawArtificial intelligencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, many researchers have been interested in performing futility analyses at interim points during clinical trials in order to terminate futile trials. To implement such an analysis, the researcher must decide what percentage of the total number of patients must have completed the trial before the interim analysis is done. This percentage is usually between 20% and 80%. We examined the relationship between the percentage chosen and the probability of stopping the trial, given a parameter value associated with the treatment effect. The results of this examination will help the researcher plan when to do a futility analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.321
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.712
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3210.712
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.862
GPT teacher head0.704
Teacher spread0.158 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biopharmaceutical StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207