MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107476951 · doi:10.1002/sim.1764

Test of treatment effect in pre‐drug and post‐drug count data with zero‐inflation

2004· article· en· W2107476951 on OpenAlexaff
S. R. Paul, Xing Jiang, N. Shesh, Uditha Balasooriya

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsLikelihood-ratio testScore testStatisticsStatisticMathematicsTest statisticNull hypothesisMedicineStatistical hypothesis testing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A procedure for testing for treatment effect in data similar to the data on premature ventricular contractions (PVC) is presented. We consider a zero-inflated beta-binomial model. Based on this model, we develop score tests to test for treatment effect in the data in which observations in the form of counts are recorded before and after applying a therapy. Results of a small simulation experiment, to study small sample behaviour of a score test and a likelihood ratio test, are reported and the PVC data are analysed. Both the score and the likelihood ratio tests show good level properties. Either the score tests or the likelihood ratio tests can be used for testing the presence of treatment effect. The score tests, however, may be preferable because they use estimates of the parameters only under the null hypothesis and in the important range pi<0.5 power of the score test statistic S1 is slightly better than the likelihood ratio statistic LR1.

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)0.132
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.368
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1320.368
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.308 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207