MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071412894 · doi:10.1177/0962280211416038

Measuring continuous baseline covariate imbalances in clinical trial data

2011· article· en· W2071412894 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

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain Institute
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsCovariateStatisticsBaseline (sea)Analysis of covarianceTest statisticStatisticType I and type II errorsEconometricsMathematicsMedicineStatistical hypothesis testing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents and compares several methods of measuring continuous baseline covariate imbalance in clinical trial data. Simulations illustrate that though the t-test is an inappropriate method of assessing continuous baseline covariate imbalance, the test statistic itself is a robust measure in capturing imbalance in continuous covariate distributions. Guidelines to assess effects of imbalance on bias, type I error rate and power for hypothesis test for treatment effect on continuous outcomes are presented, and the benefit of covariate-adjusted analysis (ANCOVA) is also illustrated.

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)0.409
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.946
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4090.946
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0010.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.959
GPT teacher head0.765
Teacher spread0.194 · 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