ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Prediction-powered inference for clinical trials: application to linear covariate adjustment.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- COADVISE: covariate adjustment with variable selection in randomized controlled trials.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2026Article
- A digital twin methodology using retrospective patient data for sample size reduction in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2026Article
- How to improve statistical power in a trial with SCA2 patients using natural history data.Trials · 2026Article
- A digital twin methodology using real patient data for sample size reduction in Alzheimer's disease randomized controlled clinical trials.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prediction-powered inference (PPI) (Angelopoulos et al., Science 382(6671):669-674, 2023) and its subsequent development called PPI++ (Angelopoulos et al., 2023) provide a novel approach to standard statistical estimation, leveraging machine learning systems, to enhance unlabeled data with predictions. We use this paradigm in clinical trials. The predictions are provided by disease progression models, providing prognostic scores for all the participants as a function of baseline covariates. The proposed method would empower clinical trials by providing untreated digital twins of the treated patients while remaining statistically valid. The potential implications of this new estimator of the treatment effect in a two-arm randomized clinical trial (RCT) are manifold. First, it leads to an overall reduction of the sample size required to reach the same power as a standard RCT. Secondly, it advocates for an imbalance of controls and treated patients, requiring fewer controls to achieve the same power. Finally, this technique directly transfers any disease prediction model trained on large cohorts to practical and scientifically valid use. In this paper, we demonstrate the theoretical properties of this estimator and illustrate them through simulations. We show that it is asymptotically unbiased for the Average Treatment Effect and derive an explicit formula for its variance. We then compare this estimator to a regression-based linear covariate adjustment method. An application to an Alzheimer's disease clinical trial showcases the potential to reduce the sample size.
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.