Methods for modelling change in cluster randomization trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Randomized trials are often designed to assess an intervention's ability to change patient knowledge, behaviour or health. The study outcome will then need to be measured at least twice for each subject--prior to random assignment and following implementation of the intervention. In this paper we consider methods for modelling change when data are obtained from cluster randomization trials where the unit of allocation is a family, school or community. Attention focuses on mixed effects linear regression extensions of (i) two-sample t-tests and (ii) analysis of covariance, in both cases accounting for dependencies among cluster members. Algebraic expressions for tests of the intervention effect are derived for the special case where there are a fixed number of subjects per cluster while simulation studies are used to compare the power of these procedures in the more realistic case where there is variability in cluster size. A key conclusion is that there can be considerable gains in power when allowing for different individual-level and cluster-level associations between the baseline and follow-up assessments. The discussion is illustrated using data from a school-based smoking prevention trial.
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 | 0.246 | 0.456 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".