On the Role of Baseline Measurements for Crossover Designs under the Self and Mixed Carryover Effects Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that optimal designs are strongly model dependent. In this article, we apply the Lagrange multiplier approach to the optimal design problem, using a recently proposed model for carryover effects. Generally, crossover designs are not recommended when carryover effects are present and when the primary goal is to obtain an unbiased estimate of the treatment effect. In some cases, baseline measurements are believed to improve design efficiency. This article examines the impact of baselines on optimal designs using two different assumptions about carryover effects during baseline periods and employing a nontraditional crossover design model. As anticipated, baseline observations improve design efficiency considerably for two-period designs, which use the data in the first period only to obtain unbiased estimates of treatment effects, while the improvement is rather modest for three- or four-period designs. Further, we find little additional benefits for measuring baselines at each treatment period as compared to measuring baselines only in the first period. Although our study of baselines did not change the results on optimal designs that are reported in the literature, the problem of strong model dependency problem is generally recognized. The advantage of using multiperiod designs is rather evident, as we found that extending two-period designs to three- or four-period designs significantly reduced variability in estimating the direct treatment effect contrast.
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 | 0.230 | 0.344 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".