MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888107769 · doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000001023

Hypothesis Testing in Superiority, Noninferiority, and Equivalence Clinical Trials

2018· review· en· W2888107769 on OpenAlexaff
Dinesh Kumbhare, Mohammad Alavinia, Julio C. Furlan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNull hypothesisStatistical hypothesis testingAlternative hypothesisMedicineEquivalence (formal languages)Null (SQL)Clinical trialEconometricsStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceData miningPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In medical research, it is important to be able to examine whether there is a significant difference between two samples. With this, establishing an appropriate hypothesis is a critical, basic step for correct interpretation of results in inferential statistical data analysis. It is important to note that the aim of hypothesis testing is not to "accept" or "reject" the null hypothesis but to gauge the likelihood that the observed difference is genuine if the null hypothesis is true.Traditionally, the null hypothesis assumes that there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups. It has become more difficult to develop new treatments that are better than the standard of care. This review article summarizes and explains the methodology of the different types of clinical trials regarding the relevant basic statistical concepts and hypothesis testing.

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)0.889
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.889
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.796
GPT teacher head0.681
Teacher spread0.115 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207