MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049564589 · doi:10.1002/pst.289

Comparing two independent incidence rates using conditional and unconditional exact tests

2007· article· en· W2049564589 on OpenAlexaff
Cong Han

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmaceutical Statistics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsWestern Forest Products
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExact statisticsMathematicsStatisticsExact testWald testType I and type II errorsScore testPoisson distributionLikelihood-ratio testBinomial distributionp-valueChi-square testNegative binomial distributionBinomial testNominal levelStatisticTest statisticStatistical hypothesis testingConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several unconditional exact tests, which are constructed to control the Type I error rate at the nominal level, for comparing two independent Poisson rates are proposed and compared to the conditional exact test using a binomial distribution. The unconditional exact test using binomial p-value, likelihood ratio, or efficient score as the test statistic improves the power in general, and are therefore recommended. Unconditional exact tests using Wald statistics, whether on the original or square-root scale, may be substantially less powerful than the conditional exact test, and is not recommended. An example is provided from a cardiovascular trial.

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)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.370
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.370
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.704
GPT teacher head0.647
Teacher spread0.057 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmaceutical StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207