Assessing the validity of a statistical distribution: some illustrative examples from dermatological research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assuming a statistical distribution is one of the key points before conducting a statistical analysis. Goodness-of-fit tests are used to assess the validity of an assumed statistical distribution. In dermatological research, the goodness-of-fit tests used are less powerful. AIM: We recommend the use of some specific goodness-of-fit tests for various distributions. A graphical technique called quantile-quantile plotting is introduced as an additional tool to assess the validity of an assumed distribution. We show why one should be careful in selecting a goodness-of-fit method by giving some relevant examples. METHODS: Goodness-of-fit tests for testing normal and non-normal distributions are introduced. Quantile-quantile plots were constructed, and we conducted a simulation study for testing normality. RESULTS: We found that the Shapiro-Wilk statistic is the most powerful test overall to test for normal distribution. Quantile-quantile plotting is a very effective graphical technique to identify a distribution for a dataset. CONCLUSION: The use of the Shapiro-Wilk test and quantile-quantile plotting is recommended for testing normality.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it