ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Modern Causal Inference Approaches to Improve Power for Subgroup Analysis in Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often include subgroup analyses to assess whether treatment effects vary across prespecified patient populations. However, these analyses frequently suffer from small sample sizes, which limit the power to detect heterogeneous effects. Power can be improved by leveraging predictors of the outcome-that is, through covariate adjustment-as well as by borrowing external data from similar RCTs or observational studies. The benefits of covariate adjustment may be limited when the trial sample is small. Borrowing external data can increase the effective sample size and improve power, but it introduces two key challenges: (i) integrating data across sources can lead to model misspecification, and (ii) practical violations of the positivity assumption-where the probability of receiving the target treatment is near zero for some covariate profiles in the external data-can lead to extreme inverse-probability weights and unstable inferences, ultimately negating potential power gains. To account for these shortcomings, we present an approach to improving power in preplanned subgroup analyses of small RCTs that leverages both baseline predictors and external data. We propose de-biased estimators that accommodate parametric, machine learning (ML), and nonparametric Bayesian methods. To address practical positivity violations (PPVs), we introduce three estimators: A covariate-balancing approach, an automated de-biased machine learning (DML) estimator, and a calibrated-DML estimator. We show improved power in various simulations and offer practical recommendations for the application of the proposed methods. Finally, we apply them to evaluate the effectiveness of citalopram for negative symptoms in first-episode schizophrenia (FES) patients across subgroups defined by duration of untreated psychosis (DUP), using data from two small RCTs.
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.