MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390236152 · doi:10.1002/pst.2357

Evaluation of a flexible piecewise linear mixed‐effects model in the analysis of randomized cross‐over trials

2023· article· en· W4390236152 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmaceutical Statistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research CentreGovernment of Canada
KeywordsUnivariateMixed modelRandom effects modelGeneralized linear mixed modelPiecewiseLinear modelStatisticsComputer scienceSample size determinationResidualPiecewise linear functionEconometricsMeta-analysisMathematicsMedicineAlgorithmMultivariate statisticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-over designs are commonly used in randomized clinical trials to estimate efficacy of a new treatment. They have received a lot of attention, particularly in connection with regulatory requirements for new drugs. The main advantage of using cross-over designs over conventional parallel designs is increased precision, thanks to within-subject comparisons. In the statistical literature, more recent developments are discussed in the analysis of cross-over trials, in particular regarding repeated measures. A piecewise linear model within the framework of mixed effects has been proposed in the analysis of cross-over trials. In this article, we report on a simulation study comparing performance of a piecewise linear mixed-effects (PLME) model against two commonly cited models-Grizzle's mixed-effects (GME) and Jones & Kenward's mixed-effects (JKME) models-used in the analysis of cross-over trials. Our simulation study tried to mirror real-life situation by deriving true underlying parameters from empirical data. The findings from real-life data confirmed the original hypothesis that high-dose iodine salt have significantly lowering effect on diastolic blood pressure (DBP). We further sought to evaluate the performance of PLME model against GME and JKME models, within univariate modeling framework through a simulation study mimicking a 2 × 2 cross-over design. The fixed-effects, random-effects and residual error parameters used in the simulation process were estimated from DBP data, using a PLME model. The initial results with full specification of random intercept and slope(s), showed that the univariate PLME model performed better than the GME and JKME models in estimation of variance-covariance matrix (G) governing the random effects, allowing satisfactory model convergence during estimation. When a hierarchical view-point is adopted, in the sense that outcomes are specified conditionally upon random effects, the variance-covariance matrix of the random effects must be positive-definite. The PLME model is preferred especially in modeling an increased number of random effects, compared to the GME and JKME models that work equally well with random intercepts only. In some cases, additional random effects could explain much variability in the data, thus improving precision in estimation of the estimands (effect size) parameters.

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.

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)0.126
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.558
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1260.558
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.830
GPT teacher head0.703
Teacher spread0.126 · 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