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:摘要直接讨论实验治疗分配机制与随机化推断,可归入因果推断中的实验设计方向。

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
COLIN B. BEGG

关于 Wei 临床试验偏置硬币设计的统计推断

研究问题
在治疗分配依赖抽球机制的小样本临床试验中,采用不同随机化假定与条件化方式,会如何改变显著性推断?
方法与思路
作者重新讨论既有试验分析,比较完全随机化下的双边际条件化,与纳入实际分配机制后的不同条件化方案。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要报告不同分析所得 p 值差异很大,纳入抽球分配机制后推断更保守,并讨论设计与极小样本试验的问题。
阅读关注点
应核对实际分配规则、各检验条件化的对象、尾部概率定义,以及不同 p 值是否对应相同原假设和检验目标。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;这是对既有试验推断的讨论,摘要中的数值不支持概括所有偏置硬币设计。

原文摘要

Wei (1988) analyzed data from a clinical trial in which an urn-sampling model was used to allocate patients to treatments. The trial resulted in 11 patients being allocated to the experimental treatment, all successes, and with one patient allocated to the control treatment, a failure. Wei analyzed these data using a randomization algorithm and concluded that the results were almost significant at p = 0·051. He asserted that an analysis which ignored the design and presumed complete randomization leads to a p-value of 0.001. In fact, if a more conventional analysis is used in which both margins are fixed, then this leads to p =0·083, Fisher's exact test, if complete randomization is assumed. If the urn-sampling allocation is taken into account much more conservative inferences are obtained. An analysis which conditions on both margins leads to p = 0·28, while one which conditions on the observed sequence of responses, and the observed treatment totals leads to p = 0·62 These serious discrepancies are discussed, in addition to the inappropriateness of biased coin design and small sample sizes in important medical trials.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文