跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接研究随机化治疗分配及治疗差异推断,尤其关注自适应实验设计对推断的影响,符合因果推断方向。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
L. J. Wei
R. T. Smythe
D. Y. Lin
T. S. Park

数据依赖型治疗分配规则下的统计推断

研究问题
当二元结局试验按既有治疗结果自适应分配受试者时,如何为两种治疗的差异构造可靠的频率学派置信区间?
方法与思路
作者在随机化优胜者延续分配规则下,比较精确条件、精确无条件及近似区间,并用密歇根ECMO试验数据演示。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称中小样本下无条件程序优于条件程序,适应性分配不可忽略;似然比区间表现较好,基于最大似然估计的区间较差。
阅读关注点
应核对治疗差异的具体定义、分配与停止规则、条件化对象,以及各区间的覆盖率、长度和比较所用试验设置。
阅读边界
仅据OpenAlex索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;比较限于所述自适应设计,未给出具体性能数值,不能推断其他设计或刊本变化。

原文摘要

In comparing two treatments with dichotomous responses, the randomized play-the-winner rule (Wei and Durham 1978) tends to assign more study subjects to the better treatment. For ethical reasons, this property is desirable for studies on human subjects. The randomized play-the-winner rule, which is a modification of Zelen's play-the-winner rule (Zelen 1969), is not deterministic and is less vulnerable to experimental bias than other adaptive designs. Recently, this design has been used in a trial to evaluate extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for treating newborns with respiratory failures at the University of Michigan. In this article, exact conditional, exact unconditional, and approximate confidence intervals for the treatment difference are studied from a frequentist point of view with the randomized play-the-winner rule. For small and moderate-sized trials, the exact unconditional procedures perform much better than the conditional ones because of the adaptive nature of the designs. Furthermore, we find that the design used for the trial should not be ignored in the analysis. The large-sample unconditional confidence intervals based on likelihood ratio statistics are not very sensitive to the design and perform well for moderate-sized trials. On the other hand, the intervals derived from the maximum likelihood estimates behave poorly under the adaptive design. All of the procedures are illustrated with the Michigan ECMO data.

笔记与分组