Power analyses for stepped wedge designs with multivariate continuous outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multivariate outcomes are common in pragmatic cluster randomized trials. While sample size calculation procedures for multivariate outcomes exist under parallel assignment, none have been developed for a stepped wedge design. In this article, we present computationally efficient power and sample size procedures for stepped wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) with multivariate outcomes that differentiate the within-period and between-period intracluster correlation coefficients (ICCs). Under a multivariate linear mixed model, we derive the joint distribution of the intervention test statistics which can be used for determining power under different hypotheses and provide an example using the commonly utilized intersection-union test for co-primary outcomes. Simplifications under a common treatment effect and common ICCs across endpoints and an extension to closed-cohort designs are also provided. Finally, under the common ICC across endpoints assumption, we formally prove that the multivariate linear mixed model leads to a more efficient treatment effect estimator compared to the univariate linear mixed model, providing a rigorous justification on the use of the former with multivariate outcomes. We illustrate application of the proposed methods using data from an existing SW-CRT and present extensive simulations to validate the methods.
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 | 0.162 | 0.459 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".