Group sequential methods for cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cluster randomization trials in which intact social units are randomly assigned to different intervention groups have become very popular in recent years, particularly for the evaluation of innovations in the delivery of health care. An extensive literature dealing with the associated methodological challenges has also appeared. Although the monitoring of such trials using formal stopping rules is clearly indicated when the outcomes are irreversible and individual-level data are available sequentially, simple and reliable statistical methods that may be used for this purpose are currently not available. PURPOSE: To investigate the validity of standard group sequential methods when applied to cluster randomization trials having binary outcomes. METHODS: The large sample distributions for each of five test statistics computed from sequentially accumulated data are derived. A simulation study is performed to evaluate the finite sample properties of these statistics when applied to the interim analysis of cluster randomization trials. Data from the World Health Organization antenatal care trial are used to illustrate the methods. RESULTS: Each of the joint distributions is shown to be characterized by a covariance structure that asymptotically satisfies an independent increments structure, a foundation that simplifies group sequential methods. The simulation study reveals that four of the five test statistics evaluated provide satisfactory performance with as few as 10 clusters allocated to each of two interventions. LIMITATIONS: The applicability of our results to effect estimation following a group sequential cluster randomization trial is not investigated, although a theoretical foundation which may be used for this purpose is presented. CONCLUSIONS: Standard group sequential methods can be applied to cluster randomization trials when interim analyses are warranted.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
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 | 0.123 | 0.253 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".