Randomized Trials With Repeatedly Measured Outcomes: Handling Irregular and Potentially Informative Assessment Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Randomized trials are often designed to collect outcomes at fixed points in time after randomization. In practice, the number and timing of outcome assessments can vary among participants (i.e., irregular assessment). In fact, the timing of assessments may be associated with the outcome of interest (i.e., informative assessment). For example, in a trial evaluating the effectiveness of treatments for major depressive disorder, not only did the timings of outcome assessments vary among participants but symptom scores were associated with assessment frequency. This type of informative observation requires appropriate statistical analysis. Although analytic methods have been developed, they are rarely used. In this article, we review the literature on irregular assessments with a view toward developing recommendations for analyzing trials with irregular and potentially informative assessment times. We show how the choice of analytic approach hinges on assumptions about the relationship between the assessment and outcome processes. We argue that irregular assessment should be treated with the same care as missing data, and we propose that trialists adopt strategies to minimize the extent of irregularity; describe the extent of irregularity in assessment times; make their assumptions about the relationships between assessment times and outcomes explicit; adopt analytic techniques that are appropriate to their assumptions; and assess the sensitivity of trial results to their assumptions.
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 | 0.430 | 0.663 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".