MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004282676 · doi:10.1186/1748-7161-7-s1-o34

Determining clinical significance independently from statistical significance? Implications for practice

2012· article· en· W2004282676 on OpenAlexaff
Sanja Schreiber, Éric Parent, DM Hedden

Bibliographic record

VenueScoliosis · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical significanceClinical PracticeStatistical significanceBioinformaticsComputational biologyData sciencePathologyInternal medicineBiologyComputer scienceFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To present two proposed methods for determining clinically significant effects and describe each by using the same example from the scoliosis literature where statistical significance was not obtained. In science, statistics are universally used for making an inference about a population from sample data. The purpose of statistical inference is to determine if a proposed null hypothesis can be rejected, by comparing the probability of an observation to occur under the null hypothesis (p-value) to a chosen alpha level of confidence. The null hypothesis is rejected if the p-value is smaller than alpha. The current focus on null hypothesis statistical significance testing in published work perpetuates confusion between statistical significance and clinical importance. Clinically, there are shortfalls to relying only on statistical inference.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.149
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.149
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.807
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.190 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScoliosisSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207