MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134172846 · doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05164-1

A novel preference-informed complementary trial (PICT) design for clinical trial research influenced by strong patient preferences

2021· article· en· W3134172846 on OpenAlexafffund
Samina Ali, Gareth Hopkin, Naveen Poonai, Lawrence Richer, Maryna Yaskina, Anna Heath, Terry P. Klassen, Chris McCabe, Amy L. Drendel, Jeff Round, Martin Offringa, Petros Pechlivanoglou, Eleanor Pullenayegum, D. Subirá Ríos, Marie‐Christine Auclair, Kelly Kim, Lise Bourrier, Lauren Dawson, Kamary Coriolano Dasilva, Pamela Marples, Rick Watts, Jennifer Thull‐Freedman, Patrick J. McGrath, Timothy A.D. Graham, Lisa Hartling, Tannis Erickson, B Foot, Kurt Schreiner, Julie Leung, Juan David Ríos

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoChildren’s Health Research InstituteInstitute of Health EconomicsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenCentre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-JustineChildren's Health Research InstituteWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteResearch ManitobaAlberta Children's Hospital Research InstituteCHEO Research InstituteKidscan Children's Cancer Research
KeywordsExternal validityPreferenceInternal validityResearch designClinical study designRandomized controlled trialClinical trialMedicinePsychological interventionPopulationSample size determinationComparative effectiveness researchAlternative medicinePsychologyApplied psychologyManagement scienceComputer scienceSocial psychologyPsychiatrySurgeryEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients and their families often have preferences for medical care that relate to wider considerations beyond the clinical effectiveness of the proposed interventions. Traditionally, these preferences have not been adequately considered in research. Research questions where patients and families have strong preferences may not be appropriate for traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) due to threats to internal and external validity, as there may be high levels of drop-out and non-adherence or recruitment of a sample that is not representative of the treatment population. Several preference-informed designs have been developed to address problems with traditional RCTs, but these designs have their own limitations and may not be suitable for many research questions where strong preferences and opinions are present. METHODS: In this paper, we propose a novel and innovative preference-informed complementary trial (PICT) design which addresses key weaknesses with both traditional RCTs and available preference-informed designs. In the PICT design, complementary trials would be operated within a single study, and patients and/or families would be given the opportunity to choose between a trial with all treatment options available and a trial with treatment options that exclude the option which is subject to strong preferences. This approach would allow those with strong preferences to take part in research and would improve external validity through recruiting more representative populations and internal validity. Here we discuss the strengths and limitations of the PICT design and considerations for analysis and present a motivating example for the design based on the use of opioids for pain management for children with musculoskeletal injuries. CONCLUSIONS: PICTs provide a novel and innovative design for clinical trials with more than two arms, which can address problems with existing preference-informed trial designs and enhance the ability of researchers to reflect shared decision-making in research as well as improving the validity of trials of topics with strong preferences.

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 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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.691
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.691
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.974
GPT teacher head0.737
Teacher spread0.237 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207