Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2503.11472

Factors affecting power in stepped wedge trials when the treatment effect varies with time

Avi Kenny·Emily C. Voldal·Fan Xia·Kwun Chuen Gary Chan·Patrick J. Heagerty·James P. Hughes
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Stepped wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) have historically been analyzed using immediate treatment (IT) models, which assume the effect of the treatment is immediate after treatment initiation and subsequently remains constant over time. However, recent research has shown that this assumption can lead to severely misleading results if treatment effects vary with exposure time, i.e. time since the intervention started. Models that account for time-varying treatment effects, such as the exposure time indicator (ETI) model, allow researchers to target estimands such as the time-averaged treatment effect (TATE) over an interval of exposure time, or the point treatment effect (PTE) representing a treatment contrast at one time point. However, this increased flexibility results in reduced power. In this paper, we use public power calculation software and simulation to characterize factors affecting SW-CRT power. Key elements include choice of estimand, study design considerations, and analysis model selection. or common SW-CRT designs, the sample size (clusters per sequence or individuals per cluster-period) must be increased substantially, commonly by a factor of 1.5 to 3, but often by much more, to maintain 90\% power when switching from an IT model to an ETI model (targeting the TATE over the study). However, the inflation factor is lower for TATE estimands over shorter periods that exclude longer exposure times. In general, SW-CRT designs (including the "staircase" variant) have much greater power for estimating "short-term effects" relative to "long-term effects". For an ETI model targeting a TATE estimand, substantial power can be gained by adding time points to the start of the study or increasing baseline sample size, but surprisingly little power is gained from adding time points to the end of the study. More restrictive choices for modeling the exposure... [truncated]

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Avi Kenny, Emily C. Voldal, Fan Xia, Kwun Chuen Gary Chan, Patrick J. Heagerty, James P. Hughes. 2025-03-14. Factors affecting power in stepped wedge trials when the treatment effect varies with time. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.11472

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗