MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tips on overlapping confidence intervals and univariate linear models

2009· review· en· W2187843527 on OpenAlexaff
Adefowope Odueyungbo, Lehana Thabane, Maureen Markle‐Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Researcher · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Health and Long Term CareSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnivariateConfidence intervalStatisticsLinear regressionLinear modelMathematicsComputer scienceEconometricsMultivariate statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In randomised controlled trials, an overlap of confidence intervals is often cited as evidence of 'no statistically significant difference' between intervention groups. This paper illustrates the limitations of this strategy and compares different univariate linear regression models with baseline and follow-up response measures. The researchers also demonstrate that using 'change in response' or exit score as a function of the baseline response in clinical studies leads to the same results. Further, using a model that includes baseline response as covariate leads to more precise estimates. The implications for future trials are discussed.

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)0.225
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.581
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2250.581
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.017
Open science0.0090.006
Research integrity0.0150.036
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.252 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNurse ResearcherSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207