MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047326688 · doi:10.1002/cjs.5550360404

Doubly adaptive biased coin designs with delayed responses

2008· article· en· W2047326688 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Feifang Hu, Zhang Li, Siu Hung Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAdaptive designFunction (biology)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)Computerized adaptive testingMathematicsStatisticsMedicineArtificial intelligenceBiologyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In clinical studies, patients are usually accrued sequentially. Response‐adaptive designs are then useful tools for assigning treatments to incoming patients as a function of the treatment responses observed thus far. In this regard, doubly adaptive biased coin designs have advantageous properties under the assumption that their responses can be obtained immediately after testing. However, it is a common occurrence that responses are observed only after a certain period of time. The authors examine the effect of delayed responses on doubly adaptive biased coin designs and derive some of their asymptotic properties. It turns out that these designs are relatively insensitive to delayed responses under widely satisfied conditions. This is illustrated with 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.

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)0.072
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0720.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.676
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.196 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations51
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207