MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395419086 · doi:10.1111/trf.13635

How do I interpret a confidence interval?

2016· review· en· W2395419086 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila F. O’Brien, Qi Long Yi

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood ServicesUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalSample size determinationStatisticsRange (aeronautics)PopulationSample (material)Statistical significanceMean differenceInterval (graph theory)Population meanClinical significanceMathematicsMedicineDemographyCombinatoricsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean is a range with an upper and lower number calculated from a sample. Because the true population mean is unknown, this range describes possible values that the mean could be. If multiple samples were drawn from the same population and a 95% CI calculated for each sample, we would expect the population mean to be found within 95% of these CIs. CIs are sensitive to variability in the population (spread of values) and sample size. When used to compare the means of two or more treatment groups, a CI shows the magnitude of a difference between groups. This is helpful in understanding both the statistical significance and the clinical significance of a treatment. In this article we describe the basic principles of CIs and their interpretation.

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)0.271
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.850
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2710.850
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.009
Bibliometrics0.0200.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0170.015
Open science0.0100.005
Research integrity0.0110.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.693
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations119
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207