MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086701312 · doi:10.1177/0962280211399562

Bayesian sample size calculation for estimation of the difference between two binomial proportions

2011· article· en· W2086701312 on OpenAlexafffund
Hamid Pezeshk, Nader Nematollahi, Vahed Maroufy, Paul Marriott, John Gittins

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Tehran
KeywordsDirichlet distributionSample size determinationStatisticsMathematicsBayesian probabilityBinomial (polynomial)Beta-binomial distributionBinomial distributionNegative binomial distributionEconometricsPrior probabilityComputer sciencePoisson distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we discuss a decision theoretic or fully Bayesian approach to the sample size question in clinical trials with binary responses. Data are assumed to come from two binomial distributions. A Dirichlet distribution is assumed to describe prior knowledge of the two success probabilities p1 and p2. The parameter of interest is p = p1 - p2. The optimal size of the trial is obtained by maximising the expected net benefit function. The methodology presented in this article extends previous work by the assumption of dependent prior distributions for p1 and p2.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.299
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.299
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.782
GPT teacher head0.713
Teacher spread0.069 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207