A Simulation-Based Comparison of Covariate Adjustment Methods for the Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Covariate adjustment methods are frequently used when baseline covariate information is available for randomized controlled trials. Using a simulation study, we compared the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with three nonparametric covariate adjustment methods with respect to point and interval estimation for the difference between means. The three alternative methods were based on important members of the generalized empirical likelihood (GEL) family, specifically on the empirical likelihood (EL) method, the exponential tilting (ET) method, and the continuous updated estimator (CUE) method. Two criteria were considered for the comparison of the four statistical methods: the root mean squared error and the empirical coverage of the nominal 95% confidence intervals for the difference between means. Based on the results of the simulation study, for sensitivity analysis purposes, we recommend the use of ANCOVA (with robust standard errors when heteroscedasticity is present) together with the CUE-based covariate adjustment method.
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 | 0.259 | 0.508 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".