Evaluation of Community‐Intervention Trials via Generalized Linear Mixed Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In community-intervention trials, communities, rather than individuals, are randomized to experimental arms. Generalized linear mixed models offer a flexible parametric framework for the evaluation of community-intervention trials, incorporating both systematic and random variations at the community and individual levels. We propose here a simple two-stage inference method for generalized linear mixed models, specifically tailored to the analysis of community-intervention trials. In the first stage, community-specific random effects are estimated from individual-level data, adjusting for the effects of individual-level covariates. This reduces the model approximately to a linear mixed model with the unit of analysis being community. Because the number of communities is typically small in community-intervention studies, we apply the small-sample inference method of Kenward and Roger (1997, Biometrics53, 983-997) to the linear mixed model of second stage. We show by simulation that, under typical settings of community-intervention studies, the proposed approach improves the inference on the intervention-effect parameter uniformly over both the linearized mixed-effect approach and the adaptive Gaussian quadrature approach for generalized linear mixed models. This work is motivated by a series of large randomized trials that test community interventions for promoting cancer preventive lifestyles and behaviors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.346 | 0.528 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".