Multiple‐objective response‐adaptive repeated measurement designs in clinical trials for binary responses
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
A multiple-objective allocation strategy was recently proposed for constructing response-adaptive repeated measurement designs for continuous responses. We extend the allocation strategy to constructing response-adaptive repeated measurement designs for binary responses. The approach with binary responses is quite different from the continuous case, as the information matrix is a function of responses, and it involves nonlinear modeling. To deal with these problems, we first build the design on the basis of success probabilities. Then we illustrate how various models can accommodate carryover effects on the basis of logits of response profiles as well as any correlation structure. Through computer simulations, we find that the allocation strategy developed for continuous responses also works well for binary responses. As expected, design efficiency in terms of mean squared error drops sharply, as more emphasis is placed on increasing treatment benefit than estimation precision. However, we find that it can successfully allocate more patients to better treatment sequences without sacrificing much estimation precision.
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 | 0.200 | 0.643 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it