Modeling clustering and treatment effect heterogeneity in parallel and stepped‐wedge cluster randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cluster randomized trials are frequently used in health service evaluation. It is common practice to use an analysis model with a random effect to allow for clustering at the analysis stage. In designs where clusters are exposed to both control and treatment conditions, it may be of interest to examine treatment effect heterogeneity across clusters. In designs where clusters are not exposed to both control and treatment conditions, it can also be of interest to allow heterogeneity in the degree of clustering between arms. These two types of heterogeneity are related. It has been proposed in both parallel cluster trials, stepped-wedge, and other cross-over designs that this heterogeneity can be allowed for by incorporating additional random effect(s) into the model. Here, we show that the choice of model parameterization needs careful consideration as some parameterizations for additional heterogeneity induce unnecessary or implausible assumptions. We suggest more appropriate parameterizations, discuss their relative advantages, and demonstrate the implications of these model choices using a real example of a parallel cluster trial and a simulated stepped-wedge trial.
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 | 0.164 | 0.287 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".