A flexible micro-randomized trial design and sample size considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technological advancements have made it possible to deliver mobile health interventions to individuals. A novel framework that has emerged from such advancements is the just-in-time adaptive intervention, which aims to suggest the right support to the individuals when their needs arise. The micro-randomized trial design has been proposed recently to test the proximal effects of the components of these just-in-time adaptive interventions. However, the extant micro-randomized trial framework only considers components with a fixed number of categories added at the beginning of the study. We propose a more flexible micro-randomized trial design which allows addition of more categories to the components during the study. Note that the number and timing of the categories added during the study need to be fixed initially. The proposed design is motivated by collaboration on the Diabetes and Mental Health Adaptive Notification Tracking and Evaluation study, which learns to deliver effective text messages to encourage physical activity among patients with diabetes and depression. We developed a new test statistic and the corresponding sample size calculator for the flexible micro-randomized trial using an approach similar to the generalized estimating equation for longitudinal data. Simulation studies were conducted to evaluate the sample size calculators and an R shiny application for the calculators was developed.
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 | 0.329 | 0.449 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".