Rank-based estimators of global treatment effects for cluster randomized trials with multiple endpoints on different scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cluster randomized trials commonly employ multiple endpoints. When a single summary of treatment effects across endpoints is of primary interest, global methods represent a common analysis strategy. However, specification of the required joint distribution is non-trivial, particularly when the endpoints have different scales. We develop rank-based interval estimators for a global treatment effect referred to here as the "global win probability, or the mean of multiple Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney probabilities, and interpreted as the probability that a treatment individual responds better than a control individual on average. Using endpoint-specific ranks among the combined sample and within each arm, each individual-level observation is converted to a "win fraction" which quantifies the proportion of wins experienced over every observation in the comparison arm. An individual's multiple observations are then replaced with a single "global win fraction" by averaging win fractions across endpoints. A linear mixed model is applied directly to the global win fractions to obtain point, variance, and interval estimates adjusted for clustering. Simulation demonstrates our approach performs well concerning confidence interval coverage and type I error, and methods are easily implemented using standard software. A case study using public data is provided with corresponding R and SAS code.
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 | 0.156 | 0.382 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".