ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Sample size estimation for local hypothesis testing of functional data in medical studies: method comparison, recommendations, and a web application.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent medical studies have shown an increasing interest in inferential methods for analysing functional data, while statistical power analysis for sample size planning for such data is less explored. As a result, researchers often rely on classical scalar approaches to estimate sample size, despite working with functional data. This can substantially underestimate the required sample sizes. Moreover, there are no guidelines to assist researchers in planning, conducting, and reporting sample size estimation for studies analysing functional data.
methodsTwo functional data sets from medical sciences are used in a simulation study to explore a functional approach for sample size planning. These data represent two distinct patterns in mean function differences. Six well-known local inferential methods are evaluated for two-population comparisons of functional data. The evaluation focuses on the sample sizes required to achieve the target statistical power, under different data characteristics and assuming equal group sizes and stationary noise in the data generation process. We have also developed an interactive web-based application that helps researchers in performing a priori power analysis by allowing them to explore how changes in data characteristics affect statistical power, and consequently, the required sample size.
resultsOur comparison revealed distinct patterns in the estimated sample sizes for different data characteristics and inferential methods. Even when based on the same baseline data, the required sample sizes to achieve a target statistical power of 0.80 differed noticeably, ranging from very small to moderately large sample sizes, depending on the mean function pattern, underlying noise characteristics, and inferential approach.
conclusionsOverall, our results emphasise the importance of appropriate sample size planning and inferential method selection for valid inference in medical studies that include functional data analysis. Based on these findings, we provide guidance for researchers to follow, from study design conception through to reporting.
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.