Using Pilot Data for Power Analysis of Observational Studies for the Estimation of Dynamic Treatment Regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant attention has been given to developing data-driven methods for tailoring patient care based on individual patient characteristics. Dynamic treatment regimes formalize this approach through a sequence of decision rules that map patient information to a suggested treatment. The data for estimating and evaluating treatment regimes are ideally gathered through the use of Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials (SMARTs), though longitudinal observational studies are commonly used due to the potentially prohibitive costs of conducting a SMART. Observational studies are typically powered for simple comparisons of fixed treatment sequences; a priori power or sample size calculations for tailored strategies are rarely if ever undertaken. This has lead to many studies that fail to find a statistically significant benefit to tailoring treatment. We develop power analyses for the estimation of dynamic treatment regimes from observational studies. Our approach uses pilot data to estimate the power for comparing the value of the optimal regime, i.e., the expected outcome if all patients in the population were treated by following the optimal regime, with a known comparison mean. This allows for calculations that ensure a study has sufficient power to detect the need for tailoring, should it be present. Our approach also ensures the value of the estimated optimal treatment regime has a high probability of being within a range of the value of the true optimal regime, set a priori. We examine the performance of the proposed procedure with a simulation study and use it to size a study for reducing depressive symptoms using data from electronic health records.
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 | 0.183 | 0.575 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".