Cited by 143Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsTreatment of Major DepressionAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Sample size requirements for multivariate models to predict between-patient differences in best treatments of major depressive disorder

Luedtke, Alex, Sadikova, Ekaterina, Kessler, Ronald C.·2019·Clinical Psychological Science

Abstract

Clinical trials have documented numerous clinical features, social characteristics, and biomarkers that are “prescriptive” predictors of depression treatment response, that is, predictors of which types of treatments are best for which patients. On the basis of these results, research is actively under way to develop multivariate prescriptive prediction models to guide precision depression treatment planning. However, the sample size requirements for such models have not been analyzed. We present such an analysis here. Simulations using realistic parameter values and a state-of-the-art cross-validated targeted minimum loss-based prescription treatment response estimator show that at least 300 patients per treatment arm are needed to have adequate statistical power to detect clinically significant underlying marginal improvements in treatment response because of precision treatment selection. This is a considerably larger sample size than in most existing studies. We close with a discussion of practical study design options to address the need for larger sample sizes in future studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2167702618815466

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It is infeasible to use controlled treatment trials to study the aggregate effects of hospitalization decisions after SAs given the large samples required and the rarity of SRBs other than among high-risk patients for whom randomization would be unethical.

    “It is infeasible to use controlled treatment trials to study the aggregate effects of these decisions given the large samples required (130) and rarity of SRBs other than among high-risk patients for whom randomization would be unethical.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 73 · Cited by 143

Authors
Luedtke, A., Sadikova, E., & Kessler, R. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Luedtke, Alex
Venue
Clinical Psychological Science
Published
2019-01-18
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
445-461
ISSN
  • 2167-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 2167-7034
OpenAlex
W2910608433
Cited by
143
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 15
FWCI
16.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Clinical Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
The Giving Back Fund
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
sample size requirements, major depressive disorder, treatment response prediction, precision medicine, targeted minimum loss-based estimation, statistical power, research design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review