Revisiting Sample Size: Are Big Trials the Answer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The superiority of the evidence generated in randomized controlled trials over observational data is not only conditional to randomization. Randomized controlled trials require proper design and implementation to provide a reliable effect estimate. Adequate random sequence generation, allocation implementation, analyses based on the intention-to-treat principle, and sufficient power are crucial to the quality of a randomized controlled trial. Power, or the probability of the trial to detect a difference when a real difference between treatments exists, strongly depends on sample size. The quality of orthopaedic randomized controlled trials is frequently threatened by a limited sample size. This paper reviews basic concepts and pitfalls in sample-size estimation and focuses on the importance of large trials in the generation of valid evidence.
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 | 0.544 | 0.876 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".