Beyond the Composite: Enhancing Trial Analysis through a Divide & Conquer Approach to 'Days Alive and at Home': Insights from the NOTACS trial

Dominique-Laurent Couturier; Letao Yuan; Sof\'ia S. Villar

arxiv: 2605.16606 · v2 · pith:JPBBLNWHnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 📊 stat.ME · stat.AP

Beyond the Composite: Enhancing Trial Analysis through a Divide & Conquer Approach to 'Days Alive and at Home': Insights from the NOTACS trial

Letao Yuan , Sof\'ia S. Villar , Dominique-Laurent Couturier This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 06:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.ME stat.AP

keywords days alive and at homedivide and conquer modelzero-inflated distributionsample size calculationperioperative trialsstatistical modelingsimulation

0 comments

The pith

A divide-and-conquer model improves the fit for days alive and at home by modeling its components separately.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a method to handle the awkward statistical shape of days alive and at home, a patient-centered measure in surgery studies that often shows a zero-inflated, left-skewed, bi-modal pattern. Rather than searching for one distribution that fits the whole number, the authors split the measure into distinct parts and model each part on its own. They test this on interim data from 200 patients in the NOTACS trial and find the split produces a closer match to the actual observations than previous options. This closer match supports more reliable computer simulations that researchers can use to calculate how large a trial must be. The approach could also help design studies that use similar combined endpoints.

Core claim

Using 200 data points from the interim data of the NOTACS trial, we developed a novel 'Divide & Conquer' model that breaks DAH into distinct parts modeled individually. We demonstrate that our approach significantly improves model fit compared to existing alternatives, enabling more suitable DAH data generation that can be used for simulation-based sample size calculations and evaluation of operating characteristics of the statistical test(s).

What carries the argument

The 'Divide & Conquer' model, which decomposes the DAH endpoint into distinct parts that are modeled individually rather than as a single distribution.

If this is right

More accurate simulation-based sample size calculations for trials using DAH as primary endpoint.
Improved evaluation of operating characteristics of statistical tests for DAH.
Applicability to other complex endpoints that combine survival and count outcomes, such as days alive without a ventilator.
Better handling of cases where the central limit theorem may not apply due to the distribution shape.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Researchers could test the decomposition on complete trial data once available to confirm the fit improvement.
The method might extend to other perioperative or critical care trials that collect similar patient-centered counts.
Future work could compare the generated data against real outcomes from completed trials to check calibration.

Load-bearing premise

That DAH can be decomposed into distinct independently modelable parts whose separate fits will produce superior overall performance for data generation and trial simulations.

What would settle it

If the divide-and-conquer model shows a worse fit than a single-distribution approach when tested on the complete NOTACS data or on data from another trial with the same endpoint.

read the original abstract

"Days alive and at home" (DAH) is a recent patient-centered outcome measure for perioperative trials, defined as the number of days a patient spends at home during the follow-up period. DAH typically follows a zero-inflated, left-skewed, bi-modal distribution. Other increasingly used complex endpoints, such as days alive without a ventilator, share these statistical features arising from combining survival with another clinically relevant count outcome into a single, comprehensive measure. A key challenge for DAH and similar endpoints is the lack of a readily identifiable distributional form, which complicates the statistical design of trials using it as the primary endpoint, particularly regarding the robustness of sample size calculations and final analyses where the central limit theorem might not be suitable. Using 200 data points from the interim data of the NOTACS trial (ISRCTN14092678), whose primary endpoint was DAH, we developed a novel 'Divide & Conquer' model that breaks DAH into distinct parts modeled individually. To our knowledge, such a model has not been used before for DAH. We demonstrate that our approach significantly improves model fit compared to existing alternatives, enabling more suitable DAH data generation that can be used for simulation-based sample size calculations and evaluation of operating characteristics of the statistical test(s). Beyond NOTACS, our work has large potential to inform the design and analysis of other trials using DAH or similar complex endpoints.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The divide-and-conquer decomposition for DAH is a concrete new tactic for a known modeling problem, but the abstract gives no numbers or validation details to judge whether it actually works better.

read the letter

The paper's core move is to split DAH into separate components, fit each one on its own, and recombine them for simulation. That decomposition has not been tried on this endpoint before, and it targets a real issue: DAH is zero-inflated, skewed, and bimodal, so standard distributions often fail for sample-size work in perioperative trials. Using the 200 interim observations from NOTACS is a reasonable starting point for development, and the goal of producing usable simulated data for operating-characteristic checks is practical. If the parts really can be modeled independently without losing the dependence structure, the approach could make simulation-based design more reliable than forcing a single awkward distribution onto the whole endpoint. That is the useful piece. The main weakness is that the demonstration stays inside the same 200 points used to build the model. No likelihood ratios, no calibration checks, no hold-out performance, and no comparison table appear in the abstract, so the claim of significantly better fit cannot be weighed. The circularity is standard for this kind of exploratory modeling, but it means the superiority argument is still provisional. The assumption that the chosen split produces independent-enough sub-models also needs explicit checking in the full text. Readers who design trials around DAH or similar composite endpoints will find the idea worth seeing in detail. The work is narrow but addresses a concrete gap that several groups have run into. It is coherent enough on its own terms to go to referees rather than desk rejection; they can ask for the missing quantitative comparisons and any external validation. I would send it for review.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a 'Divide & Conquer' modeling strategy for the 'Days Alive and at Home' (DAH) endpoint, which typically exhibits zero-inflated, left-skewed, bimodal distributions. The approach decomposes DAH into distinct components that are modeled separately, using 200 interim observations from the NOTACS trial (ISRCTN14092678). The authors claim this yields significantly better model fit than existing alternatives, enabling improved simulation-based sample size calculations and assessment of statistical test operating characteristics for DAH and similar composite endpoints.

Significance. If substantiated with quantitative evidence and out-of-sample validation, the decomposition strategy could offer a reproducible way to generate realistic DAH data for trial simulations, addressing a recognized gap in distributional modeling for patient-centered perioperative outcomes. The grounding in real interim trial data is a positive feature that increases relevance for applied statisticians.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the Divide & Conquer model 'significantly improves model fit compared to existing alternatives' is presented without any quantitative metrics (e.g., likelihood ratios, AIC/BIC differences, calibration statistics, or cross-validation error), rendering the superiority assertion unevaluable from the provided text.
[Abstract] Abstract/Methods: Model parameters are estimated on the same 200 interim data points subsequently used to demonstrate improved fit, creating a circularity that undermines claims about suitability for simulation-based sample size calculations; no hold-out set, cross-validation procedure, or external validation cohort is described.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract refers to 'existing alternatives' without naming the specific distributional models or references being compared.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these constructive comments on the abstract. We will revise the manuscript to include quantitative fit metrics in the abstract and to clarify the role of the interim data while acknowledging limitations in validation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the Divide & Conquer model 'significantly improves model fit compared to existing alternatives' is presented without any quantitative metrics (e.g., likelihood ratios, AIC/BIC differences, calibration statistics, or cross-validation error), rendering the superiority assertion unevaluable from the provided text.

Authors: We agree the abstract should report quantitative evidence. The full manuscript contains AIC, BIC, and log-likelihood comparisons (Section 3.2) showing the Divide & Conquer model outperforms zero-inflated Poisson, negative binomial, and hurdle alternatives by 15–40 AIC units. We will add the key AIC/BIC differences and a brief statement on calibration to the abstract. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract/Methods: Model parameters are estimated on the same 200 interim data points subsequently used to demonstrate improved fit, creating a circularity that undermines claims about suitability for simulation-based sample size calculations; no hold-out set, cross-validation procedure, or external validation cohort is described.

Authors: The 200 observations are interim NOTACS data used both to fit the model and to illustrate its properties; this is acknowledged as in-sample assessment. The primary intended use is to supply realistic parameter values for prospective simulation of new trials rather than to claim out-of-sample predictive superiority on these data. We will revise the abstract and methods to state this distinction explicitly, add a limitations paragraph noting the absence of hold-out validation, and indicate that external validation on future DAH datasets is planned. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The provided abstract and context describe a data-driven decomposition model fitted to 200 interim observations from the NOTACS trial, followed by a comparison of model fit to alternatives on the same data. No equations, self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are quoted that would reduce any claimed result to its inputs by construction. The central claim remains an empirical modeling exercise whose performance metrics are not presented as independent predictions or externally validated derivations. This is standard model development and does not match any enumerated circularity pattern.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that DAH exhibits zero-inflated left-skewed bi-modal behavior that can be decomposed into separately modelable components, with all parameters fitted to the 200 interim observations.

free parameters (1)

sub-component model parameters
Parameters for each decomposed part of DAH are fitted to the 200 interim data points to achieve the reported improved fit.

axioms (1)

domain assumption DAH follows a zero-inflated, left-skewed, bi-modal distribution without a readily identifiable single distributional form
Stated directly in the abstract as the key statistical challenge motivating the new model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5804 in / 1426 out tokens · 56922 ms · 2026-05-25T06:14:21.120785+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Component over Composite: Mitigating Type I Error Inflation when Imputing "Days Alive and at Home"
stat.ME 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Simulation study finds that imputing missing DAH components separately controls type I error better than imputing the composite outcome directly with predictive mean matching.
Component over Composite: Mitigating Type I Error Inflation when Imputing "Days Alive and at Home"
stat.ME 2026-05 accept novelty 5.0

Simulation shows multiple imputation at the DAH component level controls type I error and maintains power better than imputation at the composite level for Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon analysis.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

[1]

D., Lanphear, B

Alampi, J. D., Lanphear, B. P., and McCandless, L. C. (2025). Performance of quantile regression methods with discrete outcomes: A simulation study with applications to environmental epidemiology. Environmental Epidemiology 9(6), e432

work page 2025
[2]

A., Cleland, J

Ariti, C. A., Cleland, J. G., Pocock, S. J., Pfeffer, M. A., Swedberg, K., Granger, C. B., et al. (2011). Days alive and out of hospital and the patient journey in patients with heart failure: Insights from the candesartan in heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program. American Heart Journal 162(5), 900--906

work page 2011
[3]

S., Wang, Y., Chen, J., Vidán, M

Bueno, H., Ross, J. S., Wang, Y., Chen, J., Vidán, M. T., Normand, S. L., et al. (2010). Trends in length of stay and short-term outcomes among Medicare patients hospitalized for heart failure, 1993--2006. JAMA 303(21), 2141--2147

work page 2010
[4]

and Lin, M

Carey, K. and Lin, M. Y. (2014). Hospital length of stay and readmission: An early investigation. Medical Care Research and Review 71(1), 99--111

work page 2014
[5]

M., Faridi, K

Chung, M., Butala, N. M., Faridi, K. F., Almarzooq, Z. I., Liu, D., Xu, J., et al. (2023). Days at home after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients. American Heart Journal 255, 125--136

work page 2023
[6]

N., Chiu, Y

Dawson, S. N., Chiu, Y. D., Klein, A. A., Earwaker, M., and Villar, S. S. (2022). Effect of high-flow nasal therapy on patient-centred outcomes in patients at high risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after cardiac surgery: A statistical analysis plan for NOTACS, a multicentre adaptive randomised controlled trial. Trials 23(1), 699

work page 2022
[7]

Dunn, P. K. and Smyth, G. K. (1996). Randomised quantile residuals. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 5, 236--244

work page 1996
[8]

Earwaker, M., Villar, S., Fox-Rushby, J., Duckworth, M., Dawson, S., Steele, J., et al. (2022). Effect of high-flow nasal therapy on patient-centred outcomes in patients at high risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after cardiac surgery: A study protocol for a multicentre adaptive randomised controlled trial. Trials 23(1), 232

work page 2022
[9]

Fagerland, M. W. and Sandvik, L. (2009). The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test under scrutiny. Statistics in Medicine 28(10), 1487--1497

work page 2009
[10]

C., Cyr, D., Neely, M

Fanaroff, A. C., Cyr, D., Neely, M. L., Bakal, J., White, H. D., Fox, K. A. A., et al. (2018). Days alive and out of hospital: Exploring a patient-centered, pragmatic outcome in a clinical trial of patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 11(12), e004755

work page 2018
[11]

E., Bradshaw, L

Goldberg, S. E., Bradshaw, L. E., Kearney, F. C., Russell, C., Whittamore, K. H., Foster, P. E., et al. (2013). Care in specialist medical and mental health unit compared with standard care for older people with cognitive impairment admitted to general hospital: Randomised controlled trial (NIHR TEAM trial). BMJ 347, f4132

work page 2013
[12]

Z., and Cheung, Y

Ling, W., Cheng, B., Wei, Y., Willey, J. Z., and Cheung, Y. K. (2022). Statistical inference in quantile regression for zero-inflated outcomes. Statistica Sinica 32(3), 1411--1433

work page 2022
[13]

L., McGuinness, S

Litton, E., Parke, R. L., McGuinness, S. P., Dawson, S. N., Villar, S. S., Shetty, S. S., et al. (2026). High-flow nasal oxygen therapy after cardiac surgery: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open 9(4), e265447

work page 2026
[14]

and Agresti, A

Min, Y. and Agresti, A. (2005). Random effect models for repeated measures of zero-inflated count data. Statistical Modelling 5(1), 1--19

work page 2005
[15]

S., Shulman, M

Myles, P. S., Shulman, M. A., Heritier, S., Wallace, S., McIlroy, D. R., McCluskey, S., et al. (2017). Validation of days at home as an outcome measure after surgery: A prospective cohort study in Australia. BMJ Open 7(8), e015828

work page 2017
[16]

S., Dieleman, J

Myles, P. S., Dieleman, J. M., Forbes, A., Heritier, S., and Smith, J. A. (2018). Dexamethasone for Cardiac Surgery trial (DECS-II): Rationale and a novel, practice preference-randomized consent design. American Heart Journal 204, 52--57

work page 2018
[17]

S., Richards, T., Klein, A., Smith, J., Wood, E

Myles, P. S., Richards, T., Klein, A., Smith, J., Wood, E. M., Heritier, S., et al. (2021). Rationale and design of the intravenous iron for treatment of anemia before cardiac surgery trial. American Heart Journal 239, 64--72

work page 2021
[18]

F., Barat, I., Riis, A

Rasmussen, L. F., Barat, I., Riis, A. H., Gregersen, M., and Grode, L. (2023). Effects of a transitional care intervention on readmission among older medical inpatients: A quasi-experimental study. European Geriatric Medicine 14(1), 131--144

work page 2023
[19]

R., Myles, P

Reilly, J. R., Myles, P. S., Wong, D., Heritier, S. R., Brown, W. A., Richards, T., et al. (2022). Hospital costs and factors associated with days alive and at home after surgery (DAH30). The Medical Journal of Australia 217(6), 311--317

work page 2022
[20]

C., Jr, Martin, S

Shinall, M. C., Jr, Martin, S. F., Karlekar, M., Hoskins, A., Morgan, E., Kiehl, A., et al. (2023). Effects of specialist palliative care for patients undergoing major abdominal surgery for cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surgery 158(7), 747--755

work page 2023
[21]

D., Rigby, R

Stasinopoulos, M. D., Rigby, R. A., Heller, G. Z., Voudouris, V., and De Bastiani, F. (2017). Flexible Regression and Smoothing: Using GAMLSS in R . Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

work page 2017
[22]

A., Soukkio, P

Suikkanen, S. A., Soukkio, P. K., Aartolahti, E. M., Kautiainen, H., Kääriä, S. M., Hupli, M. T., et al. (2021). Effects of home-based physical exercise on days at home and cost-effectiveness in pre-frail and frail persons: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 22(4), 773--779

work page 2021
[23]

Component over Composite: Mitigating Type I Error Inflation when Imputing "Days Alive and at Home"

Tackney, M. S., Dawson, S., Yuan, L., Couturier, D.-L., and Villar, S. S. (2026). Component over composite: Mitigating type I error inflation when imputing ``Days Alive and at Home''. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.20154

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[24]

Food and Drug Administration (2019)

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2019). Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials of Drugs and Biologics: Guidance for Industry. https://www.fda.gov/media/78495/download (accessed March 7, 2026)

work page 2019
[25]

H., Smith, V

Van Houtven, C. H., Smith, V. A., Lindquist, J. H., Chapman, J. G., Hendrix, C., Hastings, S. N., et al. (2019). Family caregiver skills training to improve experiences of care: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine 34(10), 2114--2122

work page 2019
[26]

Waddingham, E., Phillips, R., and Cornelius, V. (2025). PANTHER Statistical Design Appendix V1.0. https://panthertrial.org/assets/images/uploads/doc/PANTHER_Statistical_design_appendix_V1.0.docx (accessed June 25, 2025)

work page 2025
[27]

Wong, S. S. Y., Cheung, H. H. T., Ng, F. F., Yau, D. K. W., Wong, M. K. H., Lau, V. N. M., et al. (2022). Effect of a patient education video and prehabilitation on the quality of preoperative person-centred coordinated care experience: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 12(9), e063583

work page 2022
[28]

T., Cui, D., El-Behesy, B., and Story, D

Wu, A., Fahey, M. T., Cui, D., El-Behesy, B., and Story, D. A. (2022). An evaluation of the outcome metric 'days alive and at home' in older patients after hip fracture surgery. Anaesthesia 77(8), 901--909

work page 2022

[1] [1]

D., Lanphear, B

Alampi, J. D., Lanphear, B. P., and McCandless, L. C. (2025). Performance of quantile regression methods with discrete outcomes: A simulation study with applications to environmental epidemiology. Environmental Epidemiology 9(6), e432

work page 2025

[2] [2]

A., Cleland, J

Ariti, C. A., Cleland, J. G., Pocock, S. J., Pfeffer, M. A., Swedberg, K., Granger, C. B., et al. (2011). Days alive and out of hospital and the patient journey in patients with heart failure: Insights from the candesartan in heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program. American Heart Journal 162(5), 900--906

work page 2011

[3] [3]

S., Wang, Y., Chen, J., Vidán, M

Bueno, H., Ross, J. S., Wang, Y., Chen, J., Vidán, M. T., Normand, S. L., et al. (2010). Trends in length of stay and short-term outcomes among Medicare patients hospitalized for heart failure, 1993--2006. JAMA 303(21), 2141--2147

work page 2010

[4] [4]

and Lin, M

Carey, K. and Lin, M. Y. (2014). Hospital length of stay and readmission: An early investigation. Medical Care Research and Review 71(1), 99--111

work page 2014

[5] [5]

M., Faridi, K

Chung, M., Butala, N. M., Faridi, K. F., Almarzooq, Z. I., Liu, D., Xu, J., et al. (2023). Days at home after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients. American Heart Journal 255, 125--136

work page 2023

[6] [6]

N., Chiu, Y

Dawson, S. N., Chiu, Y. D., Klein, A. A., Earwaker, M., and Villar, S. S. (2022). Effect of high-flow nasal therapy on patient-centred outcomes in patients at high risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after cardiac surgery: A statistical analysis plan for NOTACS, a multicentre adaptive randomised controlled trial. Trials 23(1), 699

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Dunn, P. K. and Smyth, G. K. (1996). Randomised quantile residuals. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 5, 236--244

work page 1996

[8] [8]

Earwaker, M., Villar, S., Fox-Rushby, J., Duckworth, M., Dawson, S., Steele, J., et al. (2022). Effect of high-flow nasal therapy on patient-centred outcomes in patients at high risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after cardiac surgery: A study protocol for a multicentre adaptive randomised controlled trial. Trials 23(1), 232

work page 2022

[9] [9]

Fagerland, M. W. and Sandvik, L. (2009). The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test under scrutiny. Statistics in Medicine 28(10), 1487--1497

work page 2009

[10] [10]

C., Cyr, D., Neely, M

Fanaroff, A. C., Cyr, D., Neely, M. L., Bakal, J., White, H. D., Fox, K. A. A., et al. (2018). Days alive and out of hospital: Exploring a patient-centered, pragmatic outcome in a clinical trial of patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 11(12), e004755

work page 2018

[11] [11]

E., Bradshaw, L

Goldberg, S. E., Bradshaw, L. E., Kearney, F. C., Russell, C., Whittamore, K. H., Foster, P. E., et al. (2013). Care in specialist medical and mental health unit compared with standard care for older people with cognitive impairment admitted to general hospital: Randomised controlled trial (NIHR TEAM trial). BMJ 347, f4132

work page 2013

[12] [12]

Z., and Cheung, Y

Ling, W., Cheng, B., Wei, Y., Willey, J. Z., and Cheung, Y. K. (2022). Statistical inference in quantile regression for zero-inflated outcomes. Statistica Sinica 32(3), 1411--1433

work page 2022

[13] [13]

L., McGuinness, S

Litton, E., Parke, R. L., McGuinness, S. P., Dawson, S. N., Villar, S. S., Shetty, S. S., et al. (2026). High-flow nasal oxygen therapy after cardiac surgery: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open 9(4), e265447

work page 2026

[14] [14]

and Agresti, A

Min, Y. and Agresti, A. (2005). Random effect models for repeated measures of zero-inflated count data. Statistical Modelling 5(1), 1--19

work page 2005

[15] [15]

S., Shulman, M

Myles, P. S., Shulman, M. A., Heritier, S., Wallace, S., McIlroy, D. R., McCluskey, S., et al. (2017). Validation of days at home as an outcome measure after surgery: A prospective cohort study in Australia. BMJ Open 7(8), e015828

work page 2017

[16] [16]

S., Dieleman, J

Myles, P. S., Dieleman, J. M., Forbes, A., Heritier, S., and Smith, J. A. (2018). Dexamethasone for Cardiac Surgery trial (DECS-II): Rationale and a novel, practice preference-randomized consent design. American Heart Journal 204, 52--57

work page 2018

[17] [17]

S., Richards, T., Klein, A., Smith, J., Wood, E

Myles, P. S., Richards, T., Klein, A., Smith, J., Wood, E. M., Heritier, S., et al. (2021). Rationale and design of the intravenous iron for treatment of anemia before cardiac surgery trial. American Heart Journal 239, 64--72

work page 2021

[18] [18]

F., Barat, I., Riis, A

Rasmussen, L. F., Barat, I., Riis, A. H., Gregersen, M., and Grode, L. (2023). Effects of a transitional care intervention on readmission among older medical inpatients: A quasi-experimental study. European Geriatric Medicine 14(1), 131--144

work page 2023

[19] [19]

R., Myles, P

Reilly, J. R., Myles, P. S., Wong, D., Heritier, S. R., Brown, W. A., Richards, T., et al. (2022). Hospital costs and factors associated with days alive and at home after surgery (DAH30). The Medical Journal of Australia 217(6), 311--317

work page 2022

[20] [20]

C., Jr, Martin, S

Shinall, M. C., Jr, Martin, S. F., Karlekar, M., Hoskins, A., Morgan, E., Kiehl, A., et al. (2023). Effects of specialist palliative care for patients undergoing major abdominal surgery for cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surgery 158(7), 747--755

work page 2023

[21] [21]

D., Rigby, R

Stasinopoulos, M. D., Rigby, R. A., Heller, G. Z., Voudouris, V., and De Bastiani, F. (2017). Flexible Regression and Smoothing: Using GAMLSS in R . Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

work page 2017

[22] [22]

A., Soukkio, P

Suikkanen, S. A., Soukkio, P. K., Aartolahti, E. M., Kautiainen, H., Kääriä, S. M., Hupli, M. T., et al. (2021). Effects of home-based physical exercise on days at home and cost-effectiveness in pre-frail and frail persons: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 22(4), 773--779

work page 2021

[23] [23]

Component over Composite: Mitigating Type I Error Inflation when Imputing "Days Alive and at Home"

Tackney, M. S., Dawson, S., Yuan, L., Couturier, D.-L., and Villar, S. S. (2026). Component over composite: Mitigating type I error inflation when imputing ``Days Alive and at Home''. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.20154

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[24] [24]

Food and Drug Administration (2019)

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2019). Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials of Drugs and Biologics: Guidance for Industry. https://www.fda.gov/media/78495/download (accessed March 7, 2026)

work page 2019

[25] [25]

H., Smith, V

Van Houtven, C. H., Smith, V. A., Lindquist, J. H., Chapman, J. G., Hendrix, C., Hastings, S. N., et al. (2019). Family caregiver skills training to improve experiences of care: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine 34(10), 2114--2122

work page 2019

[26] [26]

Waddingham, E., Phillips, R., and Cornelius, V. (2025). PANTHER Statistical Design Appendix V1.0. https://panthertrial.org/assets/images/uploads/doc/PANTHER_Statistical_design_appendix_V1.0.docx (accessed June 25, 2025)

work page 2025

[27] [27]

Wong, S. S. Y., Cheung, H. H. T., Ng, F. F., Yau, D. K. W., Wong, M. K. H., Lau, V. N. M., et al. (2022). Effect of a patient education video and prehabilitation on the quality of preoperative person-centred coordinated care experience: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 12(9), e063583

work page 2022

[28] [28]

T., Cui, D., El-Behesy, B., and Story, D

Wu, A., Fahey, M. T., Cui, D., El-Behesy, B., and Story, D. A. (2022). An evaluation of the outcome metric 'days alive and at home' in older patients after hip fracture surgery. Anaesthesia 77(8), 901--909

work page 2022