MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331249017 · doi:10.1542/neo.15-4-e133

Principles of Use of Biostatistics in Research

2014· article· en· W2331249017 on OpenAlex
Veena Manja, Satyan Lakshminrusimha

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

VenueNeoReviews · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsBiostatisticsNonparametric statisticsMedicineStatistical hypothesis testingParametric statisticsStatistical analysisInterpretation (philosophy)Medical physicsTest (biology)Data scienceData miningComputer scienceManagement scienceStatisticsPathologyEpidemiologyMathematicsEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data are essential components of biomedical research and require biostatistics. Doing various statistical tests has been made easy by sophisticated computer software. It is important for the investigator and the interpreting clinician to understand the basics of biostatistics for two reasons. The first is to choose the right statistical test for the computer to perform based on the nature of data derived from one's own research. The second is to understand if an analysis was performed appropriately during review and interpretation of others' research. This article reviews the choice of an appropriate parametric or nonparametric statistical test based on type of variable and distribution of data. Evaluation of diagnostic tests is covered with illustrations and tables.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.732
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.160 · 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