Hubbry Logo
Pilot experimentPilot experimentMain
Open search
Pilot experiment
Community hub
Pilot experiment
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Pilot experiment
Pilot experiment
Pilot experiment
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A pilot experiment, pilot study, pilot test or pilot project is a small-scale preliminary study conducted to evaluate feasibility, duration, cost, adverse events, and improve upon the study design prior to performance of a full-scale research project.[1][2]

Implementation

[edit]

Pilot experiments are frequently carried out before large-scale quantitative research, in an attempt to avoid time and money being used on an inadequately designed project. A pilot study is usually carried out on members of the relevant population.[1] A pilot study is used to formulate the design of the full-scale experiment which then can be adjusted.[1][2] The pilot study is potentially a critical insight to clinical trial design, recruitment and sample size of participants, treatment testing, and statistical analysis to improve the power of testing the hypothesis of the study.[2] Analysis from the pilot experiment can be added to the full-scale (and more expensive) experiment to improve the chances of a clear outcome.[1][2]

Applications

[edit]

In sociology, pilot studies can be referred to as small-scale studies that will help identify design issues before the main research is done. Although pilot experiments have a well-established tradition, their usefulness as a strategy for change has been questioned, at least in the domain of environmental management.[3] Extrapolation from a pilot study to large scale strategy may not be assumed as possible, partly due to the exceptional resources and favorable conditions that accompany a pilot study.[1]

In clinical research, studies conducted in preparation for a future randomized controlled trial are known as "pilot" and "feasibility" studies, where pilot studies are a subset of feasibility studies.[1][4] A feasibility study asks whether the study should proceed, and if so, how. A pilot study asks the same questions, but also has a specific design feature: in a pilot study, a future study is conducted on a smaller scale,[1][5] which, if having produced positive results, may lead to a Phase I clinical trial.[6] The use of pilot and feasibility studies to estimate treatment effect is controversial, with ongoing methodologic discussion about appropriateness.[7]

A checklist was published in 2016 to provide guidance on how to report pilot trials.[8]

In engineering, a pilot trial may be conducted to understand the design problems, learn the correct technique's or to capture unknown requirements prior to building a prototype. It may use prototype parts or simply samples to see which are successful and which are not, prior to more significant development effort. A pilot can typically be differentiated from a prototype by being significantly different in build, if not in function i.e. it is not intended to be developed into the end product, but to learn how to design and build the end product successfully.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Pilot experiment

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A pilot experiment is a small-scale preliminary investigation conducted prior to a full-scale study to test and refine the methods, procedures, and feasibility of the proposed research design. Often used interchangeably with terms like pilot study or pilot testing, it serves as an initial trial to identify potential issues such as recruitment challenges, data collection burdens, or intervention acceptability before committing resources to a larger trial. Unlike feasibility studies, which focus on broad practicality without human subjects data analysis, pilot experiments typically involve limited participants to simulate real conditions and ensure protocols are viable. The primary purposes of a pilot experiment include assessing key logistical elements, such as participant enrollment rates, retention, adherence to interventions, and the fidelity of protocol delivery. It also allows researchers to evaluate the acceptability and credibility of the study design from participants' perspectives, refine measurement tools, and develop best practices for clinical or ethical procedures like informed consent. In experimental contexts, pilot experiments help estimate preliminary parameters, such as effect sizes or variability, to inform sample size calculations for the main study, though they are not intended to test hypotheses or establish efficacy due to their limited power. Pilot experiments play a crucial role in enhancing the overall quality and efficiency of research by minimizing risks, such as resource waste or ethical concerns, through early detection of flaws in the study protocol. They are particularly valuable in fields like clinical trials, social sciences, and public health, where refining complex interventions or randomization processes can prevent costly failures in larger-scale implementations. Common misuses, such as relying on pilot results for safety assessments or effect size estimations, are discouraged because small samples yield unstable findings that may mislead subsequent designs. By providing actionable insights into practical challenges, pilot experiments ensure that main studies are more robust, ethical, and likely to yield reliable outcomes.

Fundamentals

Definition

A pilot experiment, also known as a pilot study, is a small-scale preliminary investigation conducted to evaluate the feasibility, duration, cost, and potential adverse events of a larger-scale study or experiment, while assisting in the refinement of methods and identification of unforeseen issues prior to full implementation. This approach serves as an initial step in the research protocol, allowing researchers to test procedures on a reduced scale without committing extensive resources, thereby minimizing risks associated with methodological flaws or logistical challenges in the main study. Key characteristics of pilot experiments include their limited scope, typically involving smaller sample sizes, shorter durations, or simplified complexity compared to the full experiment, which enables iterative adjustments based on early findings. Unlike full-scale experiments, pilot experiments emphasize process validation and practical viability over the generation of definitive, statistically powered results, with outcomes often being qualitative or indicative to guide subsequent refinements rather than to confirm hypotheses. For instance, in clinical trials, a pilot experiment might enroll 20-50 participants to assess recruitment strategies, protocol adherence, and data collection tools, adhering to guidelines suggesting at least 12 participants per group as a rule of thumb for feasibility assessment. In engineering contexts, such as manufacturing, a pilot run could involve producing a reduced output volume to test process efficiency, equipment reliability, and quality control measures before scaling to full production.

Historical development

The roots of pilot experiments trace back to 19th-century scientific practices, particularly in biology, where researchers employed small-scale trials to test hypotheses before committing to larger investigations. Charles Darwin exemplified this approach through his plant breeding experiments beginning in 1856, focusing on cross- and self-fertilization in species such as Primula and Mimulus to explore evolutionary mechanisms like variation and natural selection. These controlled, limited-scope studies allowed Darwin to observe differences in seedling vigor and fertility rates, providing preliminary data that informed his broader theories without the risks of extensive fieldwork. In the early 20th century, pilot experiments gained formal structure in agricultural science, notably at the Rothamsted Experimental Station in the UK, where small-scale field plots were used during the 1920s to assess soil fertility and fertilizer effects on crop yields. Under statistician Ronald A. Fisher's leadership from 1919, these pilot plots incorporated randomization and replication to refine experimental methods, enabling efficient testing of variables like nitrogen and phosphorus applications on wheat and barley. This period marked a shift toward systematic small-scale designs, influencing global agricultural research by demonstrating how pilots could optimize resource use in long-term studies. Adoption extended to psychology after World War II, where small feasibility studies emerged in behavioral research to evaluate methodologies and participant responses, building on wartime innovations in cognitive testing. Post-1950s developments integrated pilot experiments into clinical trials through U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines, with the 1960s emphasizing early exploratory phases to assess drug safety and pharmacokinetics on a limited scale before full-scale testing. By the 1980s, the approach expanded to software and engineering fields via prototyping pilots, such as evolutionary models in artificial intelligence systems, which allowed iterative refinement of code and user interfaces without overcommitting to unproven architectures. Influential figures like Ronald Fisher indirectly advanced pilots through his 1920s–1930s work on experimental design, promoting efficient small-scale randomization to minimize errors, as outlined in his seminal 1935 book The Design of Experiments. Similarly, 1960s UNESCO reports advocated pilot projects in development economics, using targeted trials in education and community initiatives to validate strategies for poverty reduction and productivity gains in developing regions.

Purposes and Benefits

Primary objectives

The primary objectives of a pilot experiment center on evaluating the practicality and preparatory aspects of a larger-scale study, thereby minimizing risks and enhancing overall research efficiency. These objectives include assessing feasibility, refining methods, and estimating sample sizes, all without intending to produce definitive results or test efficacy. Feasibility assessment is a core goal, involving tests of whether the experiment can be executed in practice, such as evaluating participant recruitment rates, logistical arrangements, resource demands, and retention potential. For instance, pilot experiments measure metrics like the number of individuals screened versus enrolled per month to determine if target accrual is achievable. This step ensures that potential barriers, including participant burden or institutional constraints, are identified early to inform adjustments for the main study. Method refinement focuses on detecting and correcting procedural flaws, such as ambiguous instructions, equipment malfunctions, or inconsistencies in data collection tools, to streamline operations for the full experiment. Through this objective, researchers validate protocols like randomization processes or intervention delivery, ensuring uniformity and participant comprehension before scaling up. Sample size estimation relies on preliminary data from the pilot to calculate the scale needed for the main study, using observed variability such as standard deviations or dropout rates to inform power analyses. In quantitative pilots, this often involves estimating effect sizes or variances to avoid underpowering the larger trial, with recommendations for at least 70 participants to reliably gauge parameters like standard deviation for continuous outcomes. Objectives vary by study type: in qualitative pilots, the emphasis is on achieving thematic saturation to confirm that key patterns are captured with a sufficient sample, guiding interview refinements and data collection depth; in quantitative pilots, the focus shifts to quantifying variability in responses and dropout rates to support robust statistical planning.

Advantages and limitations

Pilot experiments offer several key advantages in research design. They promote cost and time efficiency by identifying procedural errors, recruitment challenges, and methodological flaws early, thereby reducing the likelihood of full-scale study failures. For instance, pilot studies can decrease the proportion of failed trials by allowing adjustments before committing substantial resources. Additionally, they enhance ethical compliance by pre-testing procedures to detect and mitigate potential risks to participants, ensuring better protection of human subjects. Pilot experiments also facilitate team training and foster stakeholder buy-in, as the hands-on experience builds confidence and refines collaborative processes among researchers. Beyond these, pilot experiments enable resource optimization by providing insights that inform budget reallocation and prevent waste in larger efforts. For example, estimating recruitment rates or data collection times during the pilot allows for more accurate planning, minimizing overruns in the main study. However, pilot experiments have notable limitations. Their small sample sizes often result in low statistical power, making it difficult to detect true effects and increasing the risk of biased or unrepresentative results. In the context of small, open-label pilot randomized controlled trials for testing medical interventions, this underpowering for efficacy heightens the risk that observed results are due to chance rather than true effects. There is also a danger of overgeneralization, where preliminary findings are misinterpreted as confirmatory evidence rather than exploratory, leading to flawed decisions for the full study. Common drawbacks include extending the overall project timeline due to the additional phase and scalability challenges when pilot conditions differ from the full study, such as the Hawthorne effect where participants alter behavior due to awareness of being observed in small groups. In medical pilot RCTs, the lack of blinding in open-label designs risks introducing placebo effects and reporting bias. These studies are primarily focused on feasibility rather than proving effectiveness, necessitating larger confirmatory trials. Additionally, potential baseline imbalances between groups and issues with self-reported compliance can further compromise results. To mitigate these issues, hybrid approaches like adaptive designs can integrate pilot insights more seamlessly into the main trial, allowing for planned modifications based on interim data without compromising validity.

Design and Methodology

Planning and design principles

The planning and design of a pilot experiment requires strategic decisions to ensure it effectively tests the feasibility of methods and procedures for a larger-scale study, focusing on preparatory elements rather than execution or analysis. Key principles emphasize aligning the pilot's structure with the anticipated full study's complexity while maintaining methodological rigor to avoid biases that could undermine subsequent research. Scope determination begins with assessing the full study's demands to set an appropriate scale, typically smaller to conserve resources while remaining representative of the target population. For instance, sample sizes are often limited to around 30 participants per group in quantitative feasibility pilots, allowing evaluation of recruitment, retention, and procedural flow without attempting to estimate effect sizes or power the study for efficacy outcomes. Duration is similarly shortened, such as testing protocols over a condensed timeline to identify logistical issues early. This approach ensures the pilot informs refinements without overextending resources, as recommended for clinical and translational research where small samples can still yield valuable process data if justified by specific aims like variability estimation. Variable selection prioritizes core elements critical to feasibility, such as recruitment rates, adherence, and measure reliability, while simplifying or omitting secondary variables to streamline the design. Key variables might include process indicators like the proportion of eligible participants enrolled (e.g., targeting >80% for timely procedures), with inclusion of control groups feasible only if the pilot scale permits and they aid in mimicking the full study's structure. Measures should be vetted for validity and cultural appropriateness through methods like cognitive interviews, focusing on quantitative benchmarks (e.g., test-retest reliability) alongside qualitative insights to refine instruments without exhaustive testing. This selective approach prevents overload in small-scale pilots, emphasizing outcomes that directly support protocol refinement over comprehensive variable exploration. Protocol development involves crafting flexible documents that outline objectives, procedures, and contingencies to accommodate unforeseen challenges, such as alternative recruitment strategies if initial targets falter. Ethical considerations are integral, including tailored informed consent processes that disclose the pilot's preliminary nature and ensure participant protection in a reduced-scale context, such as secure data handling for smaller cohorts. Success criteria must be predefined quantitatively, for example, achieving 70% recruitment of eligible individuals or 90% follow-up compliance, to guide adaptations and evaluate feasibility objectively. These elements foster an adaptable framework that anticipates modifications, as seen in pilots refining biospecimen collection protocols with remote options during disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic. Team and resource allocation demands assembling interdisciplinary groups, including researchers, biostatisticians for design input, and interventionists trained in protocol delivery, to ensure coordinated execution and competence assessment (e.g., via knowledge tests). Budgeting should account for these elements alongside practical needs like participant incentives and data management tools, treating the pilot as a targeted investment to identify resource gaps early, such as center capacity for procedures. This collaborative setup enhances design integrity, with expertise in statistics and ethics helping to balance feasibility objectives against constraints. Pilot designs generally fall into exploratory types, which are open-ended to uncover unforeseen issues in procedures and participant experiences, versus more structured confirmatory approaches that test specific hypotheses under controlled conditions—though the former predominates to prioritize feasibility over efficacy validation. Randomization can be incorporated where practical to simulate the full study's allocation and assess balance in small groups, but it is not required for all pilots and should avoid overinterpretation of results due to limited power. This distinction ensures the design aligns with preparatory goals, using criteria like 95% compliance with ultrasound protocols in exploratory setups to benchmark success.

Implementation procedures

The implementation of a pilot experiment begins with preparation steps to ensure a controlled and efficient rollout. Site setup involves selecting appropriate locations or environments that mimic the intended full-scale conditions to minimize external variables. Participant recruitment typically employs targeted sampling methods to accelerate the process, such as recruiting volunteers who meet basic inclusion criteria, while obtaining informed consent and documenting demographics for representativeness. Baseline measurements are then collected to establish pre-intervention reference points, including initial assessments of key variables like environmental conditions or participant characteristics, using standardized tools to enable later comparisons. Execution phases follow, involving the direct application of the protocol in a phased manner to test real-world application. The protocol is run iteratively, starting with a small subset of procedures to observe initial responses, with provisions for real-time adjustments such as pausing operations to tweak instrumentation or instructions based on emerging issues. Any deviations from the planned sequence, such as equipment malfunctions or participant withdrawals, are meticulously documented in real-time logs, including timestamps, reasons, and immediate corrective actions, to inform future iterations without compromising the overall integrity. Monitoring techniques are integrated throughout to maintain fidelity and gather actionable insights. Regular check-ins occur at predefined intervals, such as daily during active phases or weekly for longer setups, involving direct observations or brief debriefs to verify adherence to the protocol and identify subtle inefficiencies. Logs serve as a primary tool for capturing qualitative feedback, with participants and team members providing notes on usability, challenges, or suggestions via structured forms or open-ended entries, ensuring a comprehensive record of experiential data. Safety and quality controls are paramount to mitigate risks and uphold standards during execution. Emergency protocols are predefined and rehearsed, including clear escalation paths for hazards like equipment failure or participant discomfort, with on-site safety officers or automated alerts to halt activities if thresholds are breached. Iterative loops allow for mid-pilot corrections, often structured in 2-3 cycles where initial runs inform refinements, such as recalibrating procedures based on fidelity checks to enhance reliability before proceeding. Pilot experiments typically span several weeks to months, depending on the study's scope and field, with progress assessments aligned to milestones to allow timely adaptations. This timeline draws from planning principles by translating designed contingencies into operational rhythms, ensuring feasibility without undue prolongation.

Evaluation and scaling

Following the completion of a pilot experiment, data collection involves gathering both quantitative metrics, such as participation rates and response times, and qualitative feedback through methods like interviews or observation notes. Preliminary analysis emphasizes descriptive approaches rather than inferential statistics to avoid overinterpretation; for quantitative data, this includes calculating means, standard deviations (SD), and frequencies, while qualitative review employs thematic coding to identify patterns in participant experiences. For instance, thematic coding might reveal barriers to adherence, such as logistical challenges, informing procedural tweaks without testing hypotheses. Success criteria are established a priori to determine feasibility, often including benchmarks like a retention rate exceeding 80% or adherence above 70%, which signal viability for scaling. Variance estimates from the pilot, particularly the SD of key outcomes, provide critical input for power calculations in the full study, helping to refine sample size requirements. To arrive at the sample size nn for detecting a specified effect size in the main experiment, use the formula for a two-sided test: n=(Zα/2+Zβ)2⋅(SD)2effect2n = \frac{(Z_{\alpha/2} + Z_{\beta})^2 \cdot (\text{SD})^2}{\text{effect}^2} Here, Zα/2Z_{\alpha/2} is the Z-score for the desired significance level (e.g., 1.96 for α=0.05\alpha = 0.05), ZβZ_{\beta} is the Z-score for power (e.g., 0.84 for 80% power), SD is the standard deviation observed in the pilot, and effect is the anticipated difference in means. Step-by-step: (1) Obtain SD from pilot descriptive statistics; (2) select α\alpha and power to find corresponding Z-values; (3) square and sum the Z-values; (4) multiply by (SD)2(\text{SD})^2 divided by the squared effect size to yield nn per group; (5) inflate by 10-20% for attrition. However, due to potential imprecision in small pilots, use the upper 80% confidence interval limit of the SD to conservatively estimate variability. Scaling decisions hinge on these evaluations, employing a go/no-go framework where thresholds guide outcomes: proceed if criteria are met, halt if fundamental flaws emerge (e.g., unresolvable recruitment issues), or adjust via protocol revisions like simplifying interventions or expanding scope to address low variance. For example, if adherence falls below 70%, modifications might include additional training, with monitoring in an extended phase before full rollout. Reporting focuses on internal documentation to capture lessons learned, detailing metrics, deviations, and rationales for decisions to foster iterative improvement across projects. To mitigate publication bias, which disproportionately affects unsuccessful pilots, all outcomes—including failures—should be systematically recorded, even if not formally published, ensuring institutional knowledge preserves negative results for future reference. Transition to full-scale implementation utilizes tools like Gantt charts to map integration, visualizing timelines for incorporating pilot adjustments, such as revised recruitment phases, into the broader study schedule while aligning with primary objectives like feasibility enhancement.

Applications

In scientific research

In clinical and biomedical research, pilot experiments play a crucial role in Phase I and II trials, which assess drug safety, tolerability, and optimal dosing before advancing to larger-scale studies. These phases typically involve small cohorts of 20 to 100 healthy volunteers or patients to evaluate pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and initial efficacy while monitoring adverse effects. For instance, Phase I trials focus on determining safe dosage ranges through dose-escalation protocols in controlled settings, often starting with 20-30 participants to minimize risk. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates these early-phase investigations as part of the Investigational New Drug (IND) application process, with enhanced guidelines since the early 2000s emphasizing rigorous safety data from preclinical and pilot human studies to expedite development while protecting participants. In the social sciences, pilot experiments are essential for pre-testing survey instruments and qualitative methods to ensure validity, reliability, and respondent comprehension. Cognitive interviews, a common pilot technique, involve think-aloud protocols where participants verbalize their thought processes while answering questions, helping researchers identify ambiguities or biases in wording. The U.S. Census Bureau routinely employs these in pilot phases for decennial surveys, conducting small-scale cognitive labs with 10-20 diverse respondents to refine questionnaires before full deployment. In ethnographic research, micro-studies serve as pilots by immersing researchers in limited community settings for short durations—often weeks—to test observation protocols, build rapport strategies, and anticipate ethical challenges in larger fieldwork. These pilots enhance the cultural sensitivity and methodological robustness of subsequent studies in anthropology and sociology. Environmental and ecological research utilizes pilot experiments to simulate habitat alterations on a small scale, forecasting broader ecosystem dynamics without widespread disruption. For example, researchers might manipulate nutrient inputs or vegetation in isolated plots within a wetland or forest to observe species interactions, biodiversity shifts, and recovery patterns, thereby informing conservation strategies. These controlled interventions, often spanning months to years in areas of 0.1-1 hectare, allow ecologists to validate models of climate change impacts or invasive species effects before scaling to regional levels. Such pilots have been pivotal in tropical forest studies, where experimental clearings or fertilization trials predict carbon sequestration responses to deforestation. A notable case in biology is the Human Genome Project (HGP), where 1990s pilot sequencing efforts targeted small DNA segments from model organisms and human chromosomes to optimize technologies like gel electrophoresis and shotgun assembly. Initiated in 1990, these pilots, begun in 1996 at six U.S. universities, developed sequencing technologies through efforts on model organisms and human DNA segments, with cumulative progress reaching about 100 million base pairs by the late 1990s. This refined mapping accuracy and reduced costs from around $10 per base initially to under $0.50 by the end of the decade, which paved the way for the full human genome draft in 2000. This iterative testing phase addressed technical bottlenecks, such as error rates in fragment assembly, ensuring scalability for the 3-billion-base-pair challenge. Pilot experiments are often integrated into scientific funding mechanisms, particularly for high-risk proposals where preliminary data is required to demonstrate feasibility. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandates or strongly encourages pilots in exploratory grants like the R21 mechanism, which supports innovative, high-reward research with up to $275,000 over two years for feasibility testing in novel areas such as behavioral interventions or genomic applications. For instance, the NHLBI's Clinical Trial Pilot Studies program requires small-scale trials to justify larger Phase II/III efforts, emphasizing risk mitigation in budget allocations since the 2000s expansion of high-risk funding tracks.

In industry and engineering

In industry and engineering, pilot experiments serve as critical tools for validating processes, mitigating risks, and ensuring commercial scalability before full-scale implementation. These experiments often involve small-scale prototypes or simulations to test feasibility under real-world conditions, allowing teams to identify inefficiencies, refine designs, and comply with regulatory requirements without committing extensive resources. In manufacturing, pilot experiments typically entail prototype runs on production lines to evaluate operational workflows and detect potential issues. For instance, in the automotive sector, a pilot study on a powertrain assembly line utilized data-driven methods to dynamically identify bottlenecks in complex layouts, enabling adjustments that improved throughput before mass production. These runs, often limited to small batches like 100 units, help optimize assembly processes by revealing equipment limitations, material flow problems, and quality variances early in the development cycle. In software and technology development, pilot experiments manifest as beta testing phases integrated into agile methodologies, where short iterative cycles validate user interfaces and functionalities. Agile sprints, commonly lasting two weeks, allow developers to deploy limited versions of applications to select user groups, gathering feedback on usability and performance to iterate rapidly. This approach, embedded in the software development life cycle, facilitates early detection of bugs and alignment with user needs, reducing the likelihood of costly post-launch revisions. Engineering projects frequently employ scale model pilot experiments to simulate infrastructure behaviors under controlled conditions. In civil engineering, wind tunnel testing of bridge designs uses scaled models to assess aerodynamic stability and structural integrity against environmental forces, as demonstrated in investigations of stay cables for long-span bridges. Such pilots, prominent in designs from the 2010s onward, provide empirical data on wind loads and vibrations, informing modifications that enhance safety and durability prior to construction. From a business perspective, pilot experiments enable ROI calculations by quantifying risk reduction and potential returns in consumer goods development. Companies like Procter & Gamble have used test markets—limited regional launches—to evaluate product performance and consumer response, refining marketing strategies and minimizing national rollout failures. These pilots lower launch risks by estimating sales uptake and operational costs, often yielding ROI through avoided rework; for example, early issue resolution in production can cut failure rates by up to 50% in new product introductions. In recent years, pilot experiments have been applied in artificial intelligence, where small-scale testing of models on limited datasets assesses performance and ethical implications before full deployment. Similarly, in renewable energy, prototypes like small wind turbines are piloted to evaluate efficiency and environmental impact as of 2025. Regulatory compliance in industry often incorporates pilot experiments for quality control validation under standards like ISO 9001, which mandates process validation where outputs cannot be fully inspected post-production. Pilot runs simulate full operations to verify consistency, with data from these tests supporting documentation for certification; this ensures manufacturing processes meet predefined criteria for repeatability and reliability before scaling.

References

  1. https://www.nccih.nih.gov/grants/pilot-studies-common-uses-and-misuses
  2. https://research.oregonstate.edu/ori/irb/what-difference-between-feasibility-studies-and-pilot-testing
  3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5716817/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5716817/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3081994/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10662929/
  7. https://qualityinspection.org/pilot-run-best-practices/
  8. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letters/darwins-works-letters/cross-and-self-fertilisation
  9. https://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/published/1876_CrossandSelfFertilisation_F1249/1876_CrossandSelfFertilisation_F1249.html
  10. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/9074/chapter/13
  11. https://ia601504.us.archive.org/4/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.45075/2015.45075.Rothamsted-Experimental-Station-Harpenden-Report-1925-26.pdf
  12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30415213/
  13. https://www.fda.gov/media/110437/download
  14. https://www.cs.umd.edu/~basili/publications/journals/J90.pdf
  15. https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/ronald-fisher-a-bad-cup-of-tea-and-the-birth-of-modern-statistics/
  16. https://cdn.un.org/unyearbook/yun/chapter_pdf/1964YUN/1964_P2_CH4.pdf
  17. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-10-1
  18. https://methods.egap.org/guides/planning/pilots_en.html
  19. https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6215-15-264
  20. https://sites.globalhealth.duke.edu/rdac/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2020/08/Core-Guide_Pilot-and-Feasibility-Studies_10-05-17.pdf
  21. https://pilotfeasibilitystudies.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40814-015-0026-y
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8849521/
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3203750/
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2824145/
  25. https://www.sei.cmu.edu/documents/2984/2004_017_001_22829.pdf
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028224000815
  27. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.05483
  28. https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/pilot-study
  29. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drugs/fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective
  30. https://med.uc.edu/depart/psychiatry/research/clinical-research/crm/trial-phases-1-2-3-defined
  31. https://ccsg.isr.umich.edu/chapters/pretesting/cognitive-interviewing/
  32. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2019/adrm/rsm2019-06.pdf
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249731133_Navigating_the_waves_the_usefulness_of_a_pilot_in_qualitative_research
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534715000695
  35. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.12878
  36. https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project/timeline
  37. https://www.genome.gov/about-nhgri/Brief-History-Timeline
  38. https://www.genome.gov/11006945/human-genome-project-goals
  39. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-25-032.html
  40. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353551102_Data-driven_dynamic_bottleneck_detection_in_complex_manufacturing_systems
  41. https://www.atlassian.com/agile/software-development/sdlc
  42. https://monday.com/blog/rnd/agile-sdlc/
  43. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/bridge/21074/21074.pdf
  44. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/2/782
  45. https://www.strategy-business.com/article/li00008
  46. https://www.encyclopedia.com/marketing/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/procter-gamble-company
  47. https://www.6sigma.us/six-sigma-in-focus/pilot-run-six-sigma/
  48. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-023-00777-5
  49. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/small-wind-market-report-2024-edition
  50. https://advisera.com/9001academy/blog/2017/01/31/how-to-establish-process-validation-in-the-qms/
  51. https://prodres.com/manufacturing-guide/manufacturing-process-design/verification-validation/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.