Application of an adjusted χ<sup>2</sup> statistic to site‐specific data in observational dental studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When a binary response is observed on teeth from each subject belonging to 2 or more exposure groups, application of the usual Pearson chi2 tests is invalid, since such responses within the same subject are not independent. Consequently, special statistical methods are needed to control for the correlation among teeth (sites) within the same subject. A simple adjustment to the Pearson chi2 statistic has been proposed for comparing proportions in site-specific data. However, the required assumptions for this statistic have not yet been thoroughly addressed. These assumptions are guaranteed to hold in experimental comparisons, but may be violated in some observational studies. METHOD: We investigate the conditions under which the adjusted chi2 statistic is valid and examine the performance of the adjusted chi2 statistic when these conditions are violated. RESULTS: Our simulation study shows that the adjusted chi2 statistic generally produces good empirical type I errors under the assumption of a common intracluster correlation coefficient. Even if the intracluster correlations are different, the adjusted statistic performs well when the groups have equal numbers of clusters (subjects). CONCLUSION: The discussion is illustrated using an observational study of caries on the roots of teeth.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".