MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097334037 · doi:10.2105/ajph.94.3.416

Pitfalls of and Controversies in Cluster Randomization Trials

2004· article· en· W2097334037 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

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomizationInferenceCluster (spacecraft)Randomized controlled trialMultitudeResearch designClinical trialSelection (genetic algorithm)Cluster randomised controlled trialCausal inferenceMedicineComputer scienceStatisticsArtificial intelligencePathologyMathematicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is now well known that standard statistical procedures become invalidated when applied to cluster randomized trials in which the unit of inference is the individual. A resulting consequence is that researchers conducting such trials are faced with a multitude of design choices, including selection of the primary unit of inference, the degree to which clusters should be matched or stratified by prognostic factors at baseline, and decisions related to cluster subsampling. Moreover, application of ethical principles developed for individually randomized trials may also require modification. We discuss several topics related to these issues, with emphasis on the choices that must be made in the planning stages of a trial and on some potential pitfalls to be avoided.

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)0.360
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3600.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.734
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.167 · 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