MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099120249 · doi:10.1111/trf.13383

How do I interpret a p value?

2015· article· en· W2099120249 on OpenAlexafffund
Sheila F. O’Brien, Lori Osmond, Qilong Yi

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood Services
FundersCanadian Blood Services
KeywordsSignificant differenceValue (mathematics)p-valueMean differenceNull hypothesisStatisticsInterpretation (philosophy)MathematicsAffect (linguistics)MedicineInternal medicinePhilosophyLinguisticsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A p-value is a number between 0 and 1 that is extremely useful in interpreting research results. Using comparison of the means of two samples as an example, a p-value <0.05 suggests that there is enough evidence to presume a real difference between groups from which the samples were drawn (that the "null hypothesis" can be rejected). We say that the difference between the means is statistically significant. However, it isn't iron clad proof and there is still a chance that there is really no difference. Furthermore, a statistically significant difference may not be clinically significant if it is not enough to appreciably affect patient outcomes. We describe the theory behind p-values and some common errors in interpretation.

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)0.288
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.850
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2880.850
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.020
Scholarly communication0.0180.017
Open science0.0100.005
Research integrity0.0160.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.690
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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