MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037636378 · doi:10.1177/1740774508098413

Optimal sample size determinations from an industry perspective based on the expected value of information

2008· article· en· W2037636378 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Trials · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample size determinationBayesian probabilityValue of informationProfit (economics)EconometricsTime horizonStatisticsSample (material)Expected utility hypothesisExpected valueRobustness (evolution)Actuarial scienceComputer scienceEconomicsMathematicsMicroeconomicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Traditional sample size calculations for randomized clinical trials depend on somewhat arbitrarily chosen factors, such as type I and II errors. As an alternative, taking a societal perspective, and using the expected value of information based on Bayesian decision theory, a number of authors have recently shown how to determine the sample size that maximizes the expected net gain, i.e., the difference between the cost of the trial and the value of the information gained from the results. Other authors have proposed Bayesian methods to determine sample sizes from an industry perspective. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to propose a Bayesian approach to sample size calculations from an industry perspective that attempts to determine the sample size that maximizes expected profit. METHODS: A model is proposed for expected total profit that includes consideration of per-patient profit, disease incidence, time horizon, trial duration, market share, discount rate, and the relationship between the results and the probability of regulatory approval. The expected value of information provided by trial data is related to the increase in expected profit from increasing the probability of regulatory approval. The methods are applied to an example, including an examination of robustness. The model is extended to consider market share as a function of observed treatment effect. RESULTS: The use of methods based on the expected value of information can provide, from an industry perspective, robust sample size solutions that maximize the difference between the expected cost of the trial and the expected value of information gained from the results. LIMITATIONS: The method is only as good as the model for expected total profit. Although the model probably has all the right elements, it assumes that market share, per-patient profit, and incidence are insensitive to trial results. The method relies on the central limit theorem which assumes that the sample sizes involved ensure that the relevant test statistics are normally distributed. CONCLUSIONS: Industry officials should consider the use of expected value of information methods for determining sample sizes for proposed trials. The method also can be used to select, from a number of proposed trials, those which maximize return from a fixed research budget.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.929
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.929
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.775
GPT teacher head0.645
Teacher spread0.130 · 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