MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058899694 · doi:10.1002/sim.4011

Nonparametric sequential monitoring of longitudinal trials

2010· article· en· W2058899694 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul Bogowicz, Edit Gombay, Giseon Heo

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsNonparametric statisticsComputer scienceSimple (philosophy)Applied mathematicsMonte Carlo methodStatisticsLongitudinal dataMathematicsAlgorithmData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the sequential monitoring of multi-armed longitudinal clinical trials. We describe an approach that is relatively simple and accessible. Sequential ranks are used to form partial sum statistics, yielding processes that have independent increments, and hence can be approximated by Brownian motions. Three monitoring procedures are proposed. The first two are asymptotic, continuous analogues of the well-known Pocock and O'Brien-Fleming group sequential procedures, whereas the third procedure is exact. Performance of the procedures is assessed using Monte Carlo simulations. Data from an orthodontic clinical trial is used to illustrate the proposed methods, for the comparison of three treatment groups.

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 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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.609
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.609
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.628
GPT teacher head0.626
Teacher spread0.002 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207