A Tale of Confusion From Overlapping Confidence Intervals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In clinical research presentations, study results are commonly reported in the form of P values and confidence intervals as an estimate of association and treatment effect. The interpretation of confidence intervals that overlap can be confusing and difficult for the reader to draw clinically meaningful conclusions. In this brief report, we describe the basics of confidence intervals and present an example from a recently published randomized control trial to illustrate a common confusion that overlapping confidence intervals between the means of two independent groups may not necessarily reject the true significant difference of effect. It is recommended that investigators use the direct difference of means between groups for confidence interval estimation to reduce type II errors. Clinicians should interpret overlapping confidence intervals with caution and avoid the assumption that overlapping confidence intervals always implies a lack of difference of treatment effect to decide application of treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.199 | 0.545 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.062 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".