Two‐stage design of clinical trials involving recurrent events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixed Poisson models are often used for the design of clinical trials involving recurrent events since they provide measures of treatment effect based on rate and mean functions and accommodate between individual heterogeneity in event rates. Planning studies based on these models can be challenging when there is a little information available on the population event rates, or the extent of heterogeneity characterized by the variance of individual-specific random effects. We consider methods for adaptive two-stage clinical trial design, which enable investigators to revise sample size estimates using data collected during the first phase of the study. We describe blinded procedures in which the group membership and treatment received by each individual are not revealed at the interim analysis stage, and a 'partially blinded' procedure in which group membership is revealed but not the treatment received by the groups. An EM algorithm is proposed for the interim analyses in both cases, and the performance is investigated through simulation. The work is motivated by the design of a study involving patients with immune thrombocytopenic purpura where the aim is to reduce bleeding episodes and an illustrative application is given using data from a cardiovascular 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 | 0.083 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".