Drift Parameter Based Sample Size Determination in Multi‐Stage Bayesian Randomized Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sample size determination in Bayesian randomized phase II trial design often relies on computationally intensive search methods, presenting challenges in terms of feasibility and efficiency. We propose a novel approach that greatly reduces the computing time of sample size calculations for Bayesian trial designs. Our approach innovatively connects group sequential design with Bayesian trial design and leverages the proportional relationship between sample size and the squared drift parameter. This results in a faster algorithm. By employing regression analysis, our method can accurately pinpoint the required sample size with significantly reduced computational burden. Through theoretical justification and extensive numerical evaluations, we validate our approach and illustrate its efficiency across a wide range of common trial scenarios, including binary endpoint with Beta-Binomial model, normal endpoint, binary/ordinal endpoint under Bayesian generalized linear model, and survival endpoints under Bayesian piecewise exponential models. To facilitate the use of our methods, we create an R package named "BayesSize" on GitHub.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.072 | 0.934 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads 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".