MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6907891905 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6006658

Noninferiority Margin Size and Acceptance of Trial Results: Contingent Valuation Survey of Clinician Preferences for Noninferior Mortality

2022· other· en· W6907891905 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineMcMaster UniversityInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesMcGill UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioBC Children's HospitalSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentContingent valuationConfidence intervalLogistic regressionMargin (machine learning)Willingness to accept

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectivesWe used modified contingent valuation methodology to determine how noninferiority margin sizes influence clinicians’ willingness to accept clinical trial results that compare mortality in critically ill children.MethodsWe surveyed pediatric infectious diseases and critical care clinicians in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and randomized respondents to review 1 of 9 mock abstracts describing a noninferiority trial of bacteremic critically ill children assigned to 7 or 14 d of antibiotics. Each scenario showed higher mortality in the 7-d group but met noninferiority criterion. We explored how noninferiority margins and baseline mortality rates influenced respondent acceptance of results.ResultsThere were 106 survey respondents: 65 (61%) critical care clinicians, 28 (26%) infectious diseases physicians, and 13 (12%) pharmacists. When noninferiority margins were 5% and 10%, 73% (24/33) and 79% (27/33) respondents would accept shorter treatment, compared with 44% (17/39) when the margin was 20% (P = 0.003). Logistic regression adjusted for baseline mortality showed 5% and 10% noninferiority margins were more likely to be associated with acceptance of shorter treatment compared with 20% margins (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3–9.6, P = 0.013; OR 5.1, 95% CI: 1.8–14.6, P = 0.002). Baseline mortality was not a significant predictor of acceptance of shorter treatment.ConclusionsClinicians are more likely to accept shorter treatment when noninferiority margins are ≤10%. However, nearly half of respondents who reviewed abstracts with 20% margins were still willing to accept shorter treatment. This is a novel application of contingent valuation methodology to elicit acceptance of research results among end users of the medical literature.HighlightsClinicians are more likely to accept shorter treatment durations based on noninferior mortality results when the noninferiority margin is 5% or 10% than if the margin is 20%.However, nearly half of clinicians would still accept shorter-duration treatment as noninferior with margins of 20%.Baseline mortality does not independently predict acceptance of shorter-duration treatment.Contingent valuation is a novel approach to elicit the acceptance of research design parameters from the perspective of endusers of the medical literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.080
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.196
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0800.196
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.304
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.145 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207