Globally optimal trial design for local decision making
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Value of information methods allows decision makers to identify efficient trial design following a principle of maximizing the expected value to decision makers of information from potential trial designs relative to their expected cost. However, in health technology assessment (HTA) the restrictive assumption has been made that, prospectively, there is only expected value of sample information from research commissioned within jurisdiction. This paper extends the framework for optimal trial design and decision making within jurisdiction to allow for optimal trial design across jurisdictions. This is illustrated in identifying an optimal trial design for decision making across the US, the UK and Australia for early versus late external cephalic version for pregnant women presenting in the breech position. The expected net gain from locally optimal trial designs of US$0.72M is shown to increase to US$1.14M with a globally optimal trial design. In general, the proposed method of globally optimal trial design improves on optimal trial design within jurisdictions by: (i) reflecting the global value of non-rival information; (ii) allowing optimal allocation of trial sample across jurisdictions; (iii) avoiding market failure associated with free-rider effects, sub-optimal spreading of fixed costs and heterogeneity of trial information with multiple trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it