Relative efficiencies of alternative preference-based designs for randomised trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work has shown that outcomes in clinical trials can be affected by which treatment the trial participants would select if they were allowed to do so, and if they do or do not actually receive that treatment. These influences are known as selection and preference effects, respectively. Unfortunately, they cannot be evaluated in conventional, parallel group trials because patient preferences remain unknown. However, several alternative designs have been proposed, to measure and take account of patient preferences. In this paper, we discuss three preference-based designs (the two-stage, fully randomised, and partially randomised designs). In conventional trials, only the treatment effect is estimable, while the preference-based designs have the potential to estimate some or all of the selection and preference effects. The relative efficiency of these designs is affected by several factors, including the proportion of participants who are undecided about treatments, or who are unable or unwilling to state a preference; the relative preference rate between the treatments being compared, among patients who do have a preference; and the ratio of patients randomised to each treatment. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these designs under different scenarios.
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 | 0.611 | 0.752 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".