MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126930228 · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/4.3.365

A closer look at the distribution of number needed to treat (NNT): a Bayesian approach

2003· article· en· W2126930228 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiostatistics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNumber needed to treatPoint estimationPosterior probabilityBayesian probabilityMathematicsStatisticsPrior probabilityEconometricsComputer scienceConfidence intervalRelative risk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, I present a Bayesian approach to estimation of the number needed to treat (NNT). The use of NNT as a measure of clinical benefit is now becoming commonplace. Various methods of estimation have been proposed, but none of them seem to provide entirely good estimates. Very little has been done to understand the statistical properties of NNT. Here, I derive the posterior distribution of NNT and use simulations to investigate the general behaviour of the distribution. The posterior mode of the distribution is proposed as a point estimate and results are compared with the conventional method of estimation of NNT done by inversion.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.210 · 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