Christopher H Schmid | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Digital N-of-1 Trials and their Application in Experimental Physiology

Traditionally, studies in experimental physiology have been conducted in small groups of human participants, animal models or cell lines. Identifying optimal study designs that achieve sufficient power for drawing proper statistical inferences to detect group level effects with small sample sizes has been challenging. Moreover, average effects derived from traditional group-level inference do not necessarily apply to individual participants. Here, we introduce N-of-1 trials as an innovative study design that can be used to draw valid statistical inference about the effects of interventions on individual participants and can be aggregated across multiple study participants to provide population-level inferences more efficiently than standard group randomized trials. N-of-1 trials have been used in healthcare settings since the late 1980s, but without large-scale adoption and with few applications in experimental physiology research settings. In this manuscript, we introduce the key components and design features of N-of-1 trials, describe statistical analysis and interpretations of the results, and describe some available digital tools to facilitate their use using examples from experimental physiology.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2024

Meta-analysis models relaxing the random effects normality assumption: methodological systematic review and simulation study

Random effects meta-analysis is widely used for synthesizing studies under the assumption that underlying effects come from a normal distribution. However, under certain conditions the use of alternative distributions might be more appropriate. We conducted a systematic review to identify articles introducing alternative meta-analysis models assuming non-normal between-study distributions. We identified 27 eligible articles suggesting 24 alternative meta-analysis models based on long-tail and skewed distributions, on mixtures of distributions, and on Dirichlet process priors. Subsequently, we performed a simulation study to evaluate the performance of these models and to compare them with the standard normal model. We considered 22 scenarios varying the amount of between-study variance, the shape of the true distribution, and the number of included studies. We compared 15 models implemented in the Frequentist or in the Bayesian framework. We found small differences with respect to bias between the different models but larger differences in the level of coverage probability. In scenarios with large between-study variance, all models were substantially biased in the estimation of the mean treatment effect. This implies that focusing only on the mean treatment effect of random effects meta-analysis can be misleading when substantial heterogeneity is suspected or outliers are present.

stat.ME↗