ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
Allocation Predictability of Individual Assignments in Restricted Randomization Designs for Two-Arm Equal Allocation Trials.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This manuscript derives the allocation predictability measured by the correct guess probability and the probability of being deterministic for individual treatment assignments, as well as the averages of a randomization sequence, based on the treatment imbalance transition matrix and the conditional allocation probability. The methods described are applicable to restricted randomization designs that satisfy the following criteria: (1) two-arm equal allocation, (2) restriction of maximum tolerated imbalance, and (3) conditional allocation probability fully determined by the observed current treatment imbalance. Analytical results indicate that, for two-arm equal allocation trials, allocation predictability alternates by the odd/even sequence order of the treatment assignment. Additionally, the sequence average allocation predictability converges to its asymptotic value significantly more slowly than the allocation predictability for individual assignment does. Consequently, comparisons of allocation predictability between different randomization designs based on sequence averages are sensitive to sequence length. Using sequence average allocation predictability may underestimate the risk of selection bias for individual assignment. This discrepancy is particularly pronounced for short sequence lengths, where individual assignment predictability can be substantially higher than the sequence average.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.