The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in head and neck surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Fragility Index (FI) is a novel tool for evaluating the robustness of statistically significant findings in a randomized control trial (RCT). It measures the number of events upon which statistical significance depends. We sought to calculate the FI scores for RCTs in the head and neck cancer literature where surgery was a primary intervention. DATA SOURCES: Potential articles were identified in PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane without publication date restrictions. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened eligible RCTs reporting at least one dichotomous and statistically significant outcome. The data from each trial were extracted and the FI scores were calculated. Associations between trial characteristics and FI were determined. RESULTS: In total, 27 articles were identified. The median sample size was 67.5 (interquartile range [IQR] = 42-143) and the median number of events per trial was 8 (IQR = 2.25-18.25). The median FI score was 1 (IQR = 0-2.5), meaning that changing one patient from a nonevent to an event in the treatment arm would change the result to a statistically nonsignificant result, or P > .05. The FI score was less than the number of patients lost to follow-up in 71% of cases. The FI score was found to be moderately correlated with P value (ρ = -0.52, P = .007) and with journal impact factor (ρ = 0.49, P = .009) on univariable analysis. On multivariable analysis, only the P value was found to be a predictor of FI score (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials in the head and neck cancer literature where surgery is a primary modality are relatively nonrobust statistically with low FI scores. Laryngoscope, 128:2094-2100, 2018.
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 | 0.702 | 0.918 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".