An exploration of participants' treatment preferences in a partial RCT.
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
The partial RCT is a modified design meant to account for participants' treatment preferences. Little is known about the factors that influence such preferences. This study investigated the extent to which participants are willing to be randomized and the factors that affect their treatment preferences. The quantitative and qualitative data collected as part of a partial RCT evaluating 2 behavioural interventions for insomnia were analyzed. Of the participants, 75% were unwilling to be randomly allocated to a treatment group. This figure increased to 90% after information on the 2 interventions was provided. Participants' knowledge of the treatment, its suitability, and their perceived ability to adhere to it influenced their treatment preference.A few participants who had no strong preference and who required treatment were willing to be randomized. The findings raise questions about the impact of treatment preference and allocation procedures on the validity of study conclusions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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