ArticleArXiv2026
When is Enough Enough? A Proposed Termination Point for the Number of Replicates in Computational Simulations.
Article in ArXiv, 2026. 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
Computational simulation provides a powerful toolkit for in silico experimentation. However, while the field has developed best practices for the design and implementation of such models, there remains ambiguity in discussions about how to understand and/or interpret their results due to their inherent ability to overwhelm traditional frequentist statistics by simply increasing the number of trials simulated. This fails the discipline in two ways: first, it leaves the community unsure of what constitutes a best practice for uniform understanding, and second, it potentially overburdens computational studies that burn clock cycles solely to ensure "enough runs to satisfy peers" without any theoretical underpinning for a definition of "enough". We propose a simple and straightforward standard for when to stop simulating additional trials, the Ω test, designed to be analogous to the function of traditional frequentist P-tests. Community adoption of a reasonable and uniform standard will permit more efficient computational experimentation and clearly communication/interpretation of the findings discovered in this way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42339494PMC13286023What 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.