Statistical Inferences Using Effect Sizes in Human Endothelial Function Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Magnitudes of change in endothelial function research can be articulated using effect size statistics. Effect sizes are commonly used in reference to Cohen’s seminal guidelines of small ( d = 0.2), medium ( d = 0.5), and large ( d = 0.8). Quantitative analyses of effect size distributions across various research disciplines have revealed values differing from Cohen’s original recommendations. Here we examine effect size distributions in human endothelial function research, and the magnitude of small, medium, and large effects for macro and microvascular endothelial function. Methods Effect sizes reported as standardized mean differences were extracted from meta research available for endothelial function. A frequency distribution was constructed to sort effect sizes. The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles were used to derive small, medium, and large effects. Group sample sizes and publication year from primary studies were also extracted to observe any potential trends, related to these factors, in effect size reporting in endothelial function research. Results Seven hundred fifty-two effect sizes were extracted from eligible meta-analyses. We determined small ( d = 0.28), medium ( d = 0.69), and large ( d = 1.21) effects for endothelial function that corresponded to the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile of the data distribution. Conclusion Our data indicate that direct application of Cohen’s guidelines would underestimate the magnitude of effects in human endothelial function research. This investigation facilitates future a priori power analyses, provides a practical guiding benchmark for the contextualization of an effect when no other information is available, and further encourages the reporting of effect sizes in endothelial function research.
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 | 0.386 | 0.792 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".