ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2025
Causal inference in randomized trials with partial clustering.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundParticipant dependence, if present, must be accounted for in the analysis of randomized trials. This dependence, also referred to as "clustering," can occur in one or more trial arms. This dependence may predate randomization or arise after randomization. We examine three trial designs: one "fully clustered" (where all participants are dependent within clusters or groups) and two "partially clustered" (where some participants are dependent within clusters and some participants are completely independent of all others).
methodsFor these three designs, we (1) use causal models to non-parametrically describe the data generating process and formalize the dependence in the observed data distribution; (2) develop a novel implementation of targeted minimum loss-based estimation for analysis; (3) evaluate the finite-sample performance of targeted minimum loss-based estimation and common alternatives via a simulation study; and (4) apply the methods to real-data from the SEARCH-IPT trial.
resultsWe show that the two randomization schemes resulting in partially clustered trials have the same dependence structure, enabling use of the same statistical methods for estimation and inference of causal effects. Our novel targeted minimum loss-based estimation approach leverages covariate adjustment and machine learning to improve precision and facilitates estimation of a large set of causal effects. In simulations, we demonstrate that targeted minimum loss-based estimation achieves comparable or markedly higher statistical power than common alternatives for these partially clustered designs. Finally, application of targeted minimum loss-based estimation to real data from the SEARCH-IPT trial resulted in 20%-57% efficiency gains, demonstrating the real-world consequences of our proposed approach.ConclusionsPartially clustered trial analysis can be made more efficient by implementing targeted minimum loss-based estimation, assuming care is taken to account for the dependent nature of the observed data.
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.