MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390232703 · doi:10.1111/sjos.12703

Consistent covariances estimation for stratum imbalances under minimization method for covariate‐adaptive randomization

2023· article· en· W4390232703 on OpenAlexafffund
Zixuan Zhao, Yanglei Song, Wenyu Jiang, Dongsheng Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Statistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsCanadian Cancer SocietyQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCovariateEstimatorMathematicsMinificationLemma (botany)InferenceStatistical inferenceStatisticsNominal levelEconometricsConsistency (knowledge bases)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceConfidence intervalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pocock and Simon's minimization method is a popular approach for covariate‐adaptive randomization in clinical trials. Valid statistical inference with data collected under the minimization method requires the knowledge of the limiting covariance matrix of within‐stratum imbalances, whose existence is only recently established. In this work, we propose a bootstrap‐based estimator for this limit and establish its consistency, in particular, by Le Cam's third lemma. As an application, we consider in simulation studies adjustments to existing robust tests for treatment effects with survival data by the proposed estimator. It shows that the adjusted tests achieve a size close to the nominal level, and unlike other designs, the robust tests without adjustment may have an asymptotic size inflation issue under the minimization method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.458
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.085 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207