MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610270207 · doi:10.1177/0194599817704395

Statistical Considerations in Otolaryngology Journals

2017· article· en· W2610270207 on OpenAlexaff
Brian W. Blakley, Bryan Janzen

Bibliographic record

VenueOtolaryngology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatistical analysisMedical statisticsPublishingOtorhinolaryngologyStatisticsComputer scienceMedical literatureData scienceMedical physicsMedicineMathematicsPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistics can be intimidating for clinicians and reviewers. Statistics are often important and useful but can mislead. Elaborate statistics can support conclusions that contradict clinical experience. This article explores some statistically related insights. Statistical reasons for rejecting papers were collated, and the frequency and complexity of statistical tests in accepted, published papers in otolaryngology journals were then studied. Most statistical errors in papers are logical misinterpretations of information rather than lack of understanding of statistics. Otolaryngology papers tend to employ relatively straightforward statistics that should be useful for clinicians. Although evidence-based medicine has changed medical publishing, clinical knowledge is more important that statistical knowledge for clinical applications of statistics.

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 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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.157
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.157
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.008

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 head0.682
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.130 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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