Does it decay? Obtaining decaying correlation parameter values from previously analysed cluster randomised trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A frequently applied assumption in the analysis of data from cluster randomised trials is that the outcomes from all participants within a cluster are equally correlated. That is, the intracluster correlation, which describes the degree of dependence between outcomes from participants in the same cluster, is the same for each pair of participants in a cluster. However, recent work has discussed the importance of allowing for this correlation to decay as the time between the measurement of participants in a cluster increases. Incorrect omission of such a decay can lead to under-powered studies, and confidence intervals for estimated treatment effects can be too narrow or too wide, depending on the characteristics of the design. When planning studies, researchers often rely on previously reported analyses of trials to inform their choice of intracluster correlation. However, most reported analyses of clustered data do not incorporate a correlation decay. Thus, often all that is available are estimates of intracluster correlations obtained under the potentially incorrect assumption of no decay. In this article, we show that it is possible to use intracluster correlation values obtained from models that incorrectly omit a decay to inform plausible choices of decaying correlations. Our focus is on intracluster correlation estimates for continuous outcomes obtained by fitting linear mixed models with exchangeable or block-exchangeable correlation structures. We describe how plausible values for decaying correlations may be obtained given these estimated intracluster correlations. An online app is presented that allows users to obtain plausible values of the decay, which can be used at the trial planning stage to assess the sensitivity of sample size and power calculations to decaying correlation structures.
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 | 0.459 | 0.867 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".