arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2508.01610

Sample size calculations for multilevel factorial longitudinal cluster randomised trials

Rhys Bowden·Rebecca Walwyn·Jessica Kasza·Andrew Copas·Fan Li·James Wason·Andrew Forbes
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Typically, trials investigate the impact of either an individual-level intervention on participant outcomes, or the impact of a cluster-level intervention on participant outcomes. Factorial designs consider two (or more) treatments for each of two (or more) different factors. In factorial trial designs, trial units (individuals or clusters) are each randomised to a level of each of the treatments; these designs allow assessment of the interactions between different interventions. Recently, there has been growing interest in the design of trials that jointly assess the impact of individual- and cluster-level interventions (i.e. multi-level interventions); requiring the development of methodology that accommodates randomisation at multiple levels. While recent work has developed sample size methodology for variants combining standard cluster randomisation and individual randomisation, that work does not apply to longitudinal cluster randomised trial designs such as the stepped wedge design or cluster randomised crossover design. Here we present dedicated sample size methodology for "split-plot factorial longitudinal cluster randomised trials" with continuous outcomes: allowing for joint assessment of individual-level and cluster-level interventions that allows for the impact of the cluster-level intervention to be assessed using any longitudinal cluster randomised trial design. We show how the power to detect given effects of the individual-level intervention, the cluster-level intervention, and the interaction between the two depends on standard results for individually-randomised trials and longitudinal cluster randomised trials. We apply these results to the SharES trial, which considered the effects of a patient- and clinician-level interventions for patients with breast cancer on patient knowledge about the risks and benefits of treatment.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Rhys Bowden, Rebecca Walwyn, Jessica Kasza, Andrew Copas, Fan Li, James Wason, Andrew Forbes. 2026-05-01. Sample size calculations for multilevel factorial longitudinal cluster randomised trials. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01610

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bias-Correction for Privacy-Protected Spatial Autoregressive Models with Application to Restaurant Network Analysis

Spatial autoregressive (SAR) models and their extensions are important tools for studying network effects. However, with an increasing emphasis on data privacy, data providers often implement protection measures that render standard SAR models inapplicable. In this study, we introduce a privacy-protected SAR model that incorporates noise into both the response and covariates to meet privacy requirements. With noise present in both components, the traditional quasi-maximum likelihood estimator becomes difficult to compute because the likelihood function cannot be directly formulated. To bypass this hurdle, we begin with a pseudo-likelihood approach, initially omitting the noise in the covariates. A Newton-Raphson algorithm is then applied to compute the estimator; however, the estimator is biased. To address this, we propose a bias-corrected Newton-Raphson-type algorithm that simultaneously accounts for noise in both the response and covariates. We further show, under appropriate regularity conditions, that the resulting estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal. To further enhance computational efficiency, we also develop a bias-corrected least squares estimator. Several extensions are discussed, and the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods is evaluated through extensive simulations. We apply the proposed methodology to restaurant transaction data from a third-party payment platform. Our method identifies a statistically significant competitive network effect among restaurants and further reveals meaningful restaurant-customer interaction patterns.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

A variational framework for modal estimation

Multivariate mode estimation arises in many statistical problems such as inverse problems, multimodal sampling, and density-based clustering, but becomes challenging in moderate to high dimensions, especially when the underlying density is not directly evaluable. We introduce GERVE (Gibbs-measure Entropy-Regularized Variational Estimation), a sample-based method for estimating multivariate modes by approximating Gibbs distributions directly from samples, without estimating or evaluating the density. GERVE uses Gaussian-mixture variational annealing and natural-gradient optimization, producing a mixture concentrated in high-density regions whose component responsibilities also provide a clustering of the observations. We prove theoretical guarantees in two regimes: as the Gibbs temperature goes to zero, the optimal variational mixture concentrates around the global modes of the population density; at fixed positive temperature, we prove existence, consistency, and asymptotic normality of empirical maximizers and propose a bootstrap procedure for uncertainty quantification. Simulations and a real-data experiment show that GERVE accurately recovers modes and produces meaningful clusters.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Objective Model Prior Probabilities in Variable Selection

For many years it was routine to use equal model prior probabilities in Bayesian model uncertainty analysis. At least twenty years ago it became clear that this was problematic, leading to support of much too large models in the increasingly huge model spaces being considered in genomics and other fields. A popular replacement was to adopt a suggestion of Harold Jeffreys for the variable selection problem in which a total of $k$ possible variables are being considered for inclusion in the model: give the collection of all models containing $d$ variables ($d = 0, . . . , k$) prior probability $1/(k + 1)$ and then divide this prior probability equally among the models in the collection. Many other choices of model prior probabilities that impose severe parsimony have also been introduced. We begin by reviewing the problems with using equal model prior probabilities and then discuss some serious problems with the Jeffreys choice. Finally, we introduce and study a number of objective alternative choices of model prior probabilities, from both numerical and theoretical perspectives.

stat.ME↗