MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characteristics of Design and Statistical Analysis of NEI-funded Ophthalmic Clinical Trials

2023· article· en· W4390489379 on OpenAlexaff
W. Zhang, Richard Zhang, Gui‐Shuang Ying

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Ophthalmology Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsConestoga College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialSample size determinationRandomized controlled trialResearch designStatistical analysisDescriptive statisticsOphthalmologyOptometrySurgeryStatisticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To describe the characteristics of trial design and statistical analysis of the National Eye Institute (NEI)-funded randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted after the year 2000. Design: Review of 42 NEI-funded ophthalmic RCTs. Methods: Eligible trials were identified from ClinicalTrials.Gov and their primary result papers were identified from PubMed. Data on the design characteristics (primary outcome, number of arms, sample size, statistical power, inclusion of one eye or two eyes) and statistical analysis (statistical method for adjustment of inter-eye correlation, correction for multiple comparisons) as reported in the primary result paper were collected independently by two authors, and the differences were adjudicated by the senior author. Descriptive analyses were performed to summarize the characteristics of trial design and statistical analysis. Main Outcome Measures: Characteristics of trial design and statistical analysis. Results: Forty-two NEI-funded ophthalmic trials conducted after 2000 were included. The majority of trials were for evaluating the efficacy of drugs (57%), medical devices (21%), or procedures (14%) for the treatment of retinal diseases (45%) or pediatric eye diseases (45%). All trials were designed with at least 80% statistical power for comparing continuous (64%), binary (24%), or time-to-event (12%) primary outcome measures. In 11 (26%) trials enrolling both eyes of a participant, two eyes were in the same treatment group in 6 (55%) trials, and two-eye data were properly analyzed with adjustment for the inter-eye correlation when needed for all these trials. However, none of these trial publications explicitly stated that the inter-eye correlation was considered in the sample size and power calculation. In 13 trials with more than two arms, 12 (92%) trials adjusted for multiplicity using Bonferroni correction (42%), Hochberg procedure (42%) or Turkey’s method (17%). Conclusion: While the availability of two eyes of a participant may complicate the ophthalmic trial design and statistical analysis, NEI-funded trials followed good practice in the trial design and statistical analysis, with enrollment of two eyes of a participant when appropriate, and adjustment of the inter-eye correlation in the statistical analysis. The sample size and power calculation can be improved by considering the inter-eye correlation and clearly reporting such information for future ophthalmic trials is important.

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)0.466
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.729
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4660.729
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0140.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.864
GPT teacher head0.684
Teacher spread0.180 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Ophthalmology JournalSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207