MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040312310 · doi:10.1002/bimj.200800233

Response Adaptive Designs with a Variance‐penalized Criterion

2009· article· en· W2040312310 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

VenueBiometrical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive designVariance (accounting)MathematicsStatisticsOptimal designMathematical optimizationComputer scienceClinical trialMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a response adaptive design of clinical trials with a variance-penalized criterion. It is shown that this criterion evaluates the performance of a response adaptive design based on both the number of patients assigned to the better treatment and the power of the statistical test. A new proportion of treatment allocation is proposed and the doubly biased coin procedure is used to target the proposed proportion. Under reasonable assumptions, the proposed design is demonstrated to generate an asymptotic variance of allocation proportions, which is smaller than that of the drop-the-loser design. Simulation comparisons of the proposed design with some existing designs are presented.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.131
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.131
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.683
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.108 · 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