SMART Designs: Bridging the Gap Between Clinical Trials and Practice in Infectious Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional randomized controlled trials often fall short in addressing the specific needs of clinical practice due to their one-size-fits-all treatment approaches. Sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTs) offer a dynamic and adaptive approach, allowing for multiple randomizations based on patient responses and evolving conditions. SMARTs enable personalized treatment pathways, such as in the trial for antiretroviral therapy in South Africa, which adjusts treatment based on patient outcomes. Despite these advantages, the use of SMARTs in infectious diseases remains limited. Greater adoption of SMARTs could promote more personalized treatment approaches, improve flexibility in response to public health needs, and enhance the effectiveness of interventions. However, challenges such as recruitment and increased expertise needed for more complex analyses must be addressed. Additionally, combining SMARTs with other adaptive designs could further improve the relevance and outcomes of clinical research.
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 | 0.436 | 0.647 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".