Examining the Probabilities of Type I Error for Unadjusted All Pairwise Comparisons and Bonferroni Adjustment Approaches in Hypothesis Testing for Proportions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine the association among the probabilities of Type I error obtained by Unadjusted All Pairwise Comparisons (UAPC) and Bonferroni-adjustment approaches, the sample size and the frequency of occurrence of an event (prevalence, proportion) in hypothesis testing of difference among the proportions in studies. In the simulation experiment planned for this purpose, 4 groups were formed and the proportions in each group were chosen between 0.10 and 0.90 so that they will be equal at each experiment. Furthermore, the sample sizes were chosen from 20 to 1000. In accordance with these scenarios, the probabilities of Type I error were calculated by both of approaches. In each approach, a significant S-curve relationship was found between the probability of Type I error and sample size. However, a significant quadratic relationship was found between the probabilities of Type I error and the proportions in each group. Nonlinear functional relations were put forward in order to estimate the observed Type I error rates obtained by the two different approaches where sample size and the proportion in each group are known. Furthermore, it was founded that Bonferroni-adjustment approach cannot always protect Type I error level. It was observed that the probability of Type I error estimated by the functional relation on Type I error rate for UAPC approach is lower than the values calculated using the formula in the literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.698 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".