The Challenge of Designing Stroke Trials That Change Practice: MCID vs. Sample Size and Pragmatism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the basis for evidence-based acute stroke care. For an RCT to change practice, its results have to be statistically significant and clinically meaningful. While methods to assess statistical significance are standardized and widely agreed upon, there is no clear consensus on how to assess clinical significance. Researchers often refer to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) when describing the smallest change in outcomes that is considered meaningful to patients and leads to a change in patient management. It is widely accepted that a treatment should only be adopted when its effect on outcome is equal to or larger than the MCID. There are however situations in which it is reasonable to decide against adopting a treatment, even when its beneficial effect matches or exceeds the MCID, for example when it is resource- intensive and associated with high costs. Furthermore, while the MCID represents an important concept in this regard, defining it for an individual trial is difficult as it is highly context specific. In the following, we use hypothetical stroke trial examples to review the challenges related to MCID, sample size and pragmatic considerations that researchers face in acute stroke trials, and propose a framework for designing meaningful stroke trials that have the potential to change clinical practice.
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 | 0.746 | 0.848 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".