MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172095467 · doi:10.1002/sim.2663

On estimating treatment effects under non‐compliance in randomized clinical trials: are intent‐to‐treat or instrumental variables analyses perfect solutions?

2006· article· en· W2172095467 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Heejung Bang, C.E. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationMinistère de l'Économie, de la Science et de l'Innovation - Québec
KeywordsInstrumental variableEstimatorProtocol (science)EconometricsEstimationRandomized controlled trialAverage treatment effectStatisticsComputer scienceMedicineMathematicsEconomicsSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this report, we compared four estimators (intent-to-treat, as treated, per protocol, and instrumental variables estimators) that are conventionally considered for treatment effect estimation by simulation under different non-compliance scenarios in typical clinical trial settings. We found that intent-to-treat and instrumental variables estimators are not perfect and can be problematic in some situations although these two estimators carry desirable properties as we assume.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.502
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.090 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207