MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

TYPE I ERROR RATES IN REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA WHEN USING RATIO VARIABLES

2001· article· en· W1985970567 on OpenAlexaff
Yufei Liu, Robert W. Schutz

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsMathematicsCovariancePopulationCorrelationVariable (mathematics)Correlation coefficientMathematical analysisDemographyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A ratio variable Y = X1/X2, a composite variable that consists of two component variables (a numerator variable X1, and á denominator variable X2), has been widely used as a dependent variable in human movement and health related research (e.g., moment of force, Vo2max, and waist-to-hip ratio). The purpose of this study was to investigate how the variation and the correlation of the component variables affect type I error rates in RM ANOVA while using ratio variables. Monte Carlo simulation procedures showed that the characteristics (covariance structure, relative variance, and correlation) of the two component variables strongly effect both the covariance structure of the type I error rate in RM ANOVA. In the condition of equal covariance structure of the component populations, the convariance structure of the ratios was virtually the same as that of the components (population epsilon = 1.0), regardless of the level of the correlation and the relative variation of the component variables. If only the numerator violated the assumption of circularity, the population epsilon of the ratio data tended to have smaller magnitudes when the correlation and the relative coefficient of variation (Cv1/Cv2) between the numerator and denominator were high. Under the same condition, the population epsilon tended to have greater magnitudes when the correlation and Cv1/Cv2 were low. The estimate of the population epsilon exhibited the greatest bias and the largest standard deviation, resulting in a serious inflation of type I error rate, in the condition of low Cv1/Cv2 (0.5), regardless of the conditions of the epsilon and correlation of the component variables. The results suggest that researchers should make an effort to reduce the variation of the denominator variable in data collection process. If homogeneity of the denominator variable and large sample size are present (e.g., Cv2 is smaller than Cv1, n > 30), it may reduce the likelihood of blassing epsilon and protect the type I error rate when ratios are used in RM ANOVA.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.273
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.454
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2730.454
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207