An improved method for analysis of interrupted time series (ITS) data: accounting for patient heterogeneity using weighted analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interrupted time series (ITS) design is commonly used to evaluate the impact of interventions in healthcare settings. Segmented regression (SR) is the most commonly used statistical method and has been shown to be useful in practical applications involving ITS designs. Nevertheless, SR is prone to aggregation bias, which leads to imprecision and loss of power to detect clinically meaningful differences. The objective of this article is to present a weighted SR method, where variability across patients within the healthcare facility and across time points is incorporated through weights. We present the methodological framework, provide optimal weights associated with data at each time point and discuss relevant statistical inference. We conduct extensive simulations to evaluate performance of our method and provide comparative analysis with the traditional SR using established performance criteria such as bias, mean square error and statistical power. Illustrations using real data is also provided. In most simulation scenarios considered, the weighted SR method produced estimators that are uniformly more precise and relatively less biased compared to the traditional SR. The weighted approach also associated with higher statistical power in the scenarios considered. The performance difference is much larger for data with high variability across patients within healthcare facilities. The weighted method proposed here allows us to account for the heterogeneity in the patient population, leading to increased accuracy and power across all scenarios. We recommend researchers to carefully design their studies and determine their sample size by incorporating heterogeneity in the patient population.
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 | 0.051 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".