Evaluating clinical significance: Incorporating robust statistics with normative comparison tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate a modified test of equivalence for conducting normative comparisons when distribution shapes are non-normal and variances are unequal. A Monte Carlo study was used to compare the empirical Type I error rates and power of the proposed Schuirmann-Yuen test of equivalence, which utilizes trimmed means, with that of the previously recommended Schuirmann and Schuirmann-Welch tests of equivalence when the assumptions of normality and variance homogeneity are satisfied, as well as when they are not satisfied. The empirical Type I error rates of the Schuirmann-Yuen were much closer to the nominal α level than those of the Schuirmann or Schuirmann-Welch tests, and the power of the Schuirmann-Yuen was substantially greater than that of the Schuirmann or Schuirmann-Welch tests when distributions were skewed or outliers were present. The Schuirmann-Yuen test is recommended for assessing clinical significance with normative comparisons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.261 | 0.773 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".