Getting it right: Methods for risk ratios and risk differences cluster randomized trials with a small number of clusters

Shifeng Sun; Xueqi Wang; Zhuoran Hou; Elizabeth L. Turner

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2511.23419

Getting it right: Methods for risk ratios and risk differences cluster randomized trials with a small number of clusters

Shifeng Sun·Xueqi Wang·Zhuoran Hou·Elizabeth L. Turner

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Most cluster randomized trials (CRTs) randomize fewer than 30-40 clusters in total. When performing inference for such ``small'' CRTs, it is important to use methods that appropriately account for the small sample size. When the generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach is used for analysis of ``small'' CRTs, the robust variance estimator from GEE is biased downward and therefore bias-corrected standard errors should be used. Moreover, in order to avoid inflated Type I error, an appropriate bias-corrected standard error should be paired with the t- rather than Z-statistic when making inference about a single-parameter intervention effect. Although several bias-correction methods (including Kauermann and Carroll (KC), Mancl and DeRouen (MD), Morel, Bokossa, and Neerchal (MBN), and the average of KC and MD (AVG)) have been evaluated for inference for odds ratios, their finite-sample behavior in ``small'' CRTs with few clusters has not been thoroughly investigated for risk ratios and risk differences. The current article aims to fill the gap by including analysis via binomial, Poisson and Gaussian models and for a broad spectrum of scenarios. Analysis is via binomial and Poisson models (using log and identity link for risk and differences measures, respectively). We additionally explore the use of Gaussian models with identity link for risk differences and adopt the "modified" approach for analysis with misspecified Poisson and Gaussian models. We consider a broad spectrum of scenarios including for rare outcomes, small cluster sizes, high intracluster correlations (ICCs), and high coefficients of variation (CVs) of cluster size.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Shifeng Sun, Xueqi Wang, Zhuoran Hou, Elizabeth L. Turner. 2025-11-28. Getting it right: Methods for risk ratios and risk differences cluster randomized trials with a small number of clusters. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.23419

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↗