MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589026107 · doi:10.1111/pan.13088

Sequential allocation trial design in anesthesia: an introduction to methods, modeling, and clinical applications

2017· review· en· W2589026107 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

VenuePediatric Anesthesia · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample size determinationMedicineRange (aeronautics)Confidence intervalStatisticsPopulationMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Estimation of the dose–response curve for new anesthetic protocols typically focuses on identifying minimum effective doses. The application of a sequential experimental method is appropriate, as it minimizes sample size requirements by updating dose assignments based on information accrued from successive subjects. One approach is the up‐and‐down method for estimating the median effective dose in a patient population ( ED 50 ). Designs better suited for achieving greater than 50% effectiveness, include the biased coin approach, and continual reassessment method. In this review we introduce different sequential design methods, provide examples of their use, and show through simulation how the method employed influences sample size and the accuracy of the estimated dose. Simulation studies are presented to illustrate the effects of dose parameter and stopping rule choice for up‐and‐down method and biased coin approach. For continual reassessment method, the effects of assumed dose–response model, prior guess, and cohort size are simulated. A binary response regression curve was fit to the data in Saidman and Eger's endtidal halothane dose‐finding study to provide a dose–response curve for generating simulations. A range of options exist when designing a study using sequential allocation with biased coin approach or continual reassessment method. Method choice influences the required sample size and confidence in estimated effect. In the halothane example, up‐and‐down method decreases the required sample size by 20–30% when the choice of design parameters is optimal. For both up‐and‐down method and biased coin approach designs, greater sample sizes, arising from adjusted stopping criteria, might be required to achieve reliable estimates. The continual reassessment method is only efficient if a limited range of doses can be chosen a priori . In conclusion the up‐and‐down method can be more efficient than nonsequential designs for the estimation of the median dose/intervention level for a given intervention ( ED 50 ). The biased coin approach or continual reassessment method are preferred for the estimation of higher or lower tail quantiles such as ED 90 or ED 10 . Continual reassessment method may be superior if knowledge of the dose–response relationship is available for the drug of interest.

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 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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.742
GPT teacher head0.644
Teacher spread0.098 · 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