ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2025
Rethinking Probability of Success as Bayes Utility.
Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the hybrid frequentist-Bayesian approach, the probability of success (PoS) of a trial is the expected value of the traditional power function of a test with respect to a design prior assigned to the parameter under scrutiny. However, this definition is not univocal and some of the proposals do not lack of potential drawbacks. These problems are related to the fact that such definitions are all based on the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis rather than on the probability of choosing the correct hypothesis, be it the null or the alternative. In this article, we propose a unifying, decision-theoretic approach that yields a new definition of PoS as the expected utility of the trial (u-PoS), that is, as the expected probability of making the correct choice between the two hypotheses. This proposal shows a conceptual advantage over previous definitions of PoS; moreover, it produces smaller optimal sample sizes whenever the design prior assigns positive probability to the null hypothesis.
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.