Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38446441›Full record

ArticleBiometrics2024

Adaptive selection of the optimal strategy to improve precision and power in randomized trials.

Laura B Balzer, Erica Cai, Lucas Godoy Garraza, Pracheta Amaranath

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Laura B BalzerDivision of Biostatistics, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3730-410X
Erica CaiManning College of Information and Computer Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, United States.
Lucas Godoy GarrazaDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, United States.
Pracheta AmaranathManning College of Information and Computer Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, United States.

Funding

A Multisectoral Strategy to Address Persistent Drivers of the HIV Epidemic in East AfricaU01AI150510 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HAVLIR, DIANE V, KAMYA, MOSES ROBERT · 2020 to 2025
$23.4M
Targeted Learning using adaptive designs for HIV Epidemic control in East AfricaR01AI074345 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI PETERSEN, MAYA LIV, VANDERLAAN, MARK J · 2007 to 2023
$6.6M
Environmental Health Perspectives, NIEHS27302C0031 · NIEHS · 2008 to 2008
$1.2M
2016 SETAC Asia/Pacific ConferenceR13ES027302 · NIEHS · SOCIETY/ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY/CHEM · PI MENZIE, CHARLES · 2016 to 2016
$6k
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI074345NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI150510NIEHS NIH HHS 27302C0031NIH HHS U01AI150510
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Benkeser et al. demonstrate how adjustment for baseline covariates in randomized trials can meaningfully improve precision for a variety of outcome types. Their findings build on a long history, starting in 1932 with R.A. Fisher and including more recent endorsements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. Here, we address an important practical consideration: how to select the adjustment approach-which variables and in which form-to maximize precision, while maintaining Type-I error control. Balzer et al. previously proposed Adaptive Pre-specification within TMLE to flexibly and automatically select, from a prespecified set, the approach that maximizes empirical efficiency in small trials (N < 40). To avoid overfitting with few randomized units, selection was previously limited to working generalized linear models, adjusting for a single covariate. Now, we tailor Adaptive Pre-specification to trials with many randomized units. Using V-fold cross-validation and the estimated influence curve-squared as the loss function, we select from an expanded set of candidates, including modern machine learning methods adjusting for multiple covariates. As assessed in simulations exploring a variety of data-generating processes, our approach maintains Type-I error control (under the null) and offers substantial gains in precision-equivalent to 20%-43% reductions in sample size for the same statistical power. When applied to real data from ACTG Study 175, we also see meaningful efficiency improvements overall and within subgroups.

Indexed as

Machine LearningResearch DesignLinear ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample SizeUnited Statescovariate adjustmentefficiencymachine learningpre-specificationrandomized trialsTMLE

Identifiers

PMID38446441
PMCPMC10916702

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.