Estimands in clinical trials of complex disease processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical trials with random assignment of treatment provide evidence about causal effects of an experimental treatment compared to standard care. However, when disease processes involve multiple types of possibly semi-competing events, specification of target estimands and causal inferences can be challenging. Intercurrent events such as study withdrawal, the introduction of rescue medication, and death further complicate matters. There has been much discussion about these issues in recent years, but guidance remains ambiguous. Some recommended approaches are formulated in terms of hypothetical settings that have little bearing in the real world. We discuss issues in formulating estimands, beginning with intercurrent events in the context of a linear model and then move on to more complex disease history processes amenable to multistate modeling. We elucidate the meaning of estimands implicit in some recommended approaches for dealing with intercurrent events and highlight the disconnect between estimands formulated in terms of potential outcomes and the real world.
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 | 0.195 | 0.453 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".