MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Methods for the Statistical Analysis of Binary Data in Split‐Cluster Designs

2004· article· en· W2171007688 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsCancer Care OntarioWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStatisticGeneralizationTest statisticStatisticsBinary dataStatistical hypothesis testingBinary numberCluster (spacecraft)MathematicsChi-square testComputer scienceData miningAlgorithmArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Split-cluster designs are frequently used in the health sciences when naturally occurring clusters such as multiple sites or organs in the same subject are assigned to different treatments. However, statistical methods for the analysis of binary data arising from such designs are not well developed. The purpose of this article is to propose and evaluate a new procedure for testing the equality of event rates in a design dividing each of k clusters into two segments having multiple sites (e.g., teeth, lesions). The test statistic proposed is a generalization of a previously published procedure based on adjusting the standard Pearson chi-square statistic, but can also be derived as a score test using the approach of generalized estimating equations.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.383
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 score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.383
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.860
GPT teacher head0.687
Teacher spread0.172 · 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