Practical and Optimal Crossover Designs for Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crossover designs have received great attention in clinical trials, as they allow subjects to serve as their own controls and gain such advantage as higher efficiency and smaller sample size over parallel designs, because the within-subject variability is in general smaller than between-subject variability. Response-adaptive crossover designs allow clinical trials to adapt and respond to the information acquired during the trials to achieve various objectives. Adaptive designs have been considered to allocate more subjects to superior treatments, improve statistical efficiency, reduce the sample size for cost savings, increase the sample size to maintain prespecified statistical power, or include auxiliary information. We focus on an adaptive allocation scheme to maximize the benefits from superior treatments, while maintaining a sufficiently high level of statistical efficiency, controlled by a suitable weight parameter. We review and discuss the strategy of incorporating multiple objectives, while advocating a regression type estimation approach via the Generalized Estimating Equations method. We show that the multiple objectives can be successfully incorporated to construct a spectrum of designs, ranging over various efficiencies and trial outcomes of success. Moreover, the adaptive allocation scheme successfully constructs designs with a desired efficiency, as illustrated by practical two- and three-period designs.
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 | 0.025 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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; 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".