Meta‐analysis of quantile intervals from different studies with an application to a pulmonary tuberculosis data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the completion of many studies, experimental results are reported in terms of distribution-free confidence intervals that may involve pairs of order statistics. This article considers a meta-analysis procedure to combine these confidence intervals from independent studies to estimate or construct a confidence interval for the true quantile of the population distribution. Data synthesis is made under both fixed-effect and random-effect meta-analysis models. We show that mean square error (MSE) of the combined quantile estimator is considerably smaller than that of the best individual quantile estimator. We also show that the coverage probability of the meta-analysis confidence interval is quite close to the nominal confidence level. The random-effect meta-analysis model yields a better coverage probability and smaller MSE than the fixed-effect meta-analysis model. The meta-analysis method is then used to synthesize medians of patient delays in pulmonary tuberculosis diagnosis in China to provide an illustration of the proposed methodology.
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 | 0.054 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".