Residual-matching: An efficient alternative to random sampling in human subjects research recruitment
Hooyman, A.; Schaefer, S. Y.; Huentelman, M.
Show abstract
ABSTRACTGiven the time- and resource-intense nature of human subjects research, we have developed a more intelligent approach to participant recruitment above and beyond random sampling that leverages pilot or preliminary results to reduce the overall number of participants needed for recruitment from an existing electronic cohort or database. Using open-access data from the General Social Survey (GSS) of the National Opinion Research Center, we generated pilot and validation datasets through a simulation to establish moderate and weak relationships based on linear regression. We then compared the performance of our residual-matching method against random sampling in their probabilities of achieving a given level of statistical power as well as their prediction accuracies. Results showed that the residual-matching method was superior to random sampling, yielding smaller sample sizes with equivalent mean square error. We therefore advocate the use of residual matching when scaling up pilot studies to conserve time and resources in larger follow-up studies.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.View Full Text
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study 93%
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 93%
- Comprehensive profiling of social mixing patterns in resource poor countries: a mixed methods research protocol 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantitative bias analysis for mismeasured variables in health research: a review of software tools 93%
- Quantitative bias analysis in practice: Review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding 93%
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Addressing cultural and knowledge barriers to enable preclinical sex inclusive research 93%
- Effects of Side-Effect Risk Framing Strategies on COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions: A Randomized Controlled Trial 92%
- An Experimental Test of the Effects of Redacting Grant Applicant Identifiers on Peer Review Outcomes 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- TRACKing Excess Deaths (TRACKED): an interactive online tool to monitor excess deaths associated with COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom 90%
- The consequences of adjustment, correction and selection in genome-wide association studies used for two-sample Mendelian randomization 89%
- Transparency and open science reporting guidelines in sleep research and chronobiology journals 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.