ArticleBiometrics2024
Adaptive selection of the optimal strategy to improve precision and power in randomized trials.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community health worker-facilitated telehealth for moderate-severe hypertension care in Kenya and Uganda: A randomized controlled trial.PLoS medicine · 2025Trial
- A Causal Framework for Evaluating the Total Effect of Strategies Aiming to Expand Screening and to Improve Outcomes.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Machine learning to optimize precision in the analysis of randomized trials: A journey in pre-specified, yet data-adaptive learning.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
- Powering RCTs for Marginal Effects With GLMs Using Prognostic Score Adjustment.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Causal inference in randomized trials with partial clustering.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2025Article
- Rediscovering histology - the application of artificial intelligence in inflammatory bowel disease histologic assessment.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Defining and estimating effects in cluster randomized trials: A methods comparison.Statistics in medicine · 2023Review
- "Within-Trial" Prognostic Score Adjustment Is Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation.Pharmaceutical statisticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.