The Chronic Progressive Repeated Measures (CPRM) Model for Clinical Trials Comparing Change Over Time in Quantitative Trait Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repeated measures analysis is a common analysis plan for clinical trials comparing change over time in quantitative trait outcomes in treatment versus control. Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) assuming an unstructured covariance of repeated measures is the default statistical analysis plan, with alternative covariance structures specified in the event that the MMRM model with unstructured covariance does not converge. We here describe a parsimonious covariance structure for repeated measures analysis that is specifically appropriate for longitudinal repeated measures of chronic progressive conditions. This model has the parsimonious features of the mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, but without restricting the repeated measure means to be linear with time. We demonstrate with data from completed trials that this pattern of longitudinal trajectories spreading apart over time is typical of Alzheimer’s disease. We further demonstrate that alternative covariance structures typically specified in statistical analysis plans using MMRM perform poorly for chronic progressive conditions, with the compound symmetry model being anticonservative, and the autoregressive model being poorly powered. Finally, we derive power calculation formulas for the chronic progressive repeated measures model that have the advantage of being independent of the design of the pilot studies informing the power calculations. When data follow the pattern of a chronic progressive condition. These power formulas are also appropriate for sizing clinical trials using MMRM analysis with unstructured covariance of repeated measures.
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 | 0.264 | 0.235 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".