MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377862454 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v12n3p1

The Just-About-Right Pilot Sample Size to Control the Error Margin

2023· article· en· W4377862454 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Scholastica C. Obodo, Deirdre Toher, Paul A. White

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample size determinationSample (material)Margin (machine learning)Control (management)StatisticsMinimal clinically important differenceComputer scienceMathematicsRandomized controlled trialMedicineArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In practice, the required sample size for a two-arm randomised controlled trial cannot always be determined pre-study with great accuracy. This lack of accuracy has economic, ethical and scientific implications. The sample size for a pilot study is an important consideration in helping the decision making for the sample size of a follow-on trial. Consideration of under- and over-estimation of the sample size results in the idea of a Just-About-Right (JAR) sample size. For studies involving a minimally clinical important difference (MCID) we present the pilot sample sizes to meet investigator desired JAR considerations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.262
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.262
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.344
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.173 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207