MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022223070 · doi:10.1186/s12874-020-00984-2

Baseline-adjusted proportional odds models for the quantification of treatment effects in trials with ordinal sum score outcomes

2020· article· en· W3022223070 on OpenAlexaff
Muriel Buri, Armin Curt, John D. Steeves, Torsten Hothorn

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersStaatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und InnovationEuropean Commission
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialRandomized controlled trialOrdinal regressionOddsLogistic regressionWilcoxon signed-rank testOrdered logitStatisticsOdds ratioStatistical powerBaseline (sea)Physical therapyMathematicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sum scores of ordinal outcomes are common in randomized clinical trials. The approaches routinely employed for assessing treatment effects, such as t-tests or Wilcoxon tests, are not particularly powerful in detecting changes in relevant parameters or lack the ability to incorporate baseline information. Hence, tailored statistical methods are needed for the analysis of ordinal outcomes in clinical research. METHODS: We propose baseline-adjusted proportional odds logistic regression models to overcome previous limitations in the analysis of ordinal outcomes in randomized clinical trials. For the validation of our method, we focus on common ordinal sum score outcomes of neurological clinical trials such as the upper extremity motor score, the spinal cord independence measure, and the self-care subscore of the latter. We compare the statistical power of our models to other conventional approaches in a large simulation study of two-arm randomized clinical trials based on data from the European Multicenter Study about Spinal Cord Injury (EMSCI, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01571531). We also use the new method as an alternative analysis of the historical Sygen®clinical trial. RESULTS: The simulation study of all postulated trial settings demonstrated that the statistical power of the novel method was greater than that of conventional methods. Baseline adjustments were more suited for the analysis of the upper extremity motor score compared to the spinal cord independence measure and its self-care subscore. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed baseline-adjusted proportional odds models allow the global treatment effect to be directly interpreted. This clear interpretation, the superior statistical power compared to the conventional analysis approaches, and the availability of open-source software support the application of this novel method for the analysis of ordinal outcomes of future clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.265
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.444
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2650.444
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.010
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.750
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207