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 OpenAlexaff
Allan Donner, Neil Klar

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.

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)0.797
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.874
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7970.874
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.009
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0070.061
Scholarly communication0.0130.028
Open science0.0140.015
Research integrity0.0280.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations448
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207