A multiple imputation strategy for sequential multiple assignment randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTs) are increasingly being used to inform clinical and intervention science. In a SMART, each patient is repeatedly randomized over time. Each randomization occurs at a critical decision point in the treatment course. These critical decision points often correspond to milestones in the disease process or other changes in a patient's health status. Thus, the timing and number of randomizations may vary across patients and depend on evolving patient-specific information. This presents unique challenges when analyzing data from a SMART in the presence of missing data. This paper presents the first comprehensive discussion of missing data issues typical of SMART studies: we describe five specific challenges and propose a flexible imputation strategy to facilitate valid statistical estimation and inference using incomplete data from a SMART. To illustrate these contributions, we consider data from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trial of Intervention and Effectiveness, one of the most well-known SMARTs to date.
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 | 0.090 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".