MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169168582 · doi:10.1191/1740774505cn126oa

Group sequential methods for cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes

2005· article· en· W2169168582 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Trials · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsRandomizationSample size determinationCluster randomised controlled trialStatisticsEarly stoppingInterimInterim analysisCluster (spacecraft)Computer scienceStatistical hypothesis testingClinical trialRandomized controlled trialData miningMedicineMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.137
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.397
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1370.397
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.607
GPT teacher head0.655
Teacher spread0.048 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it