Bayesian group sequential designs for cluster‐randomized trials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flexible approaches have been proposed for individually randomized trials to save time or reduce the sample size. However, flexible designs for cluster‐randomized trials in which groups of participants rather than individuals are randomized to treatment arms are less common. Motivated by a cluster‐randomized trial designed to assess the effectiveness of a machine‐learning based clinical decision support system for physicians treating patients with depression, two Bayesian group sequential designs for cluster‐randomized trials are proposed to allow for early stopping for efficacy at pre‐planned interim analyses. The difference between the two designs lies in the way that participants are sequentially recruited. Given a maximum number of clusters as well as the maximum cluster size allowed in the trial, one design sequentially recruits clusters with the given maximum cluster size, while the other recruits all clusters at the beginning of the trial but sequentially enrolls individual participants until the trial is stopped early for efficacy or the final analysis has been reached. The design operating characteristics are explored via simulations for a variety of scenarios and two outcome types for the two designs. We make recommendations for Bayesian group sequential designs of cluster‐randomized trials based on the simulation results.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.346 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it