Small‐scale Inference: Empirical Bayes and Confidence Methods for as Few as a Single Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Empirical Bayes methods of estimating the local false discovery rate (LFDR) by maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), originally developed for large numbers of comparisons, are applied to a single comparison. Specifically, when assuming a lower bound on the mixing proportion of true null hypotheses, the LFDR MLE can yield reliable hypothesis tests and confidence intervals given as few as one comparison. Simulations indicate that constrained LFDR MLEs perform markedly better than conventional methods, both in testing and in confidence intervals, for high values of the mixing proportion, but not for low values. (A decision‐theoretic interpretation of the confidence distribution made those comparisons possible.) In conclusion, the constrained LFDR estimators and the resulting effect‐size interval estimates are not only effective multiple comparison procedures but also they might replacep‐values and confidence intervals more generally. The new methodology is illustrated with the analysis of proteomics data.
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 | 0.170 | 0.462 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".