Cutoff Value for Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test by Minimum P-value: Application to COVID-19 Data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dependent and independent variables may appear uncorrelated when analyzed in full range in medical data. However, when an independent variable is divided by the cutoff value, the dependent and independent variables may become correlated in each group. Furthermore, researchers often convert independent variables of quantitative data into binary data by cutoff value and perform statistical analysis with the data. Therefore, it is important to select the optimum cutoff value since performing statistical analysis depends on the cutoff value. Our study determines the optimal cutoff value when the data of dependent and independent variables are quantitative. The piecewise linear regression analysis divides an independent variable into two by the cutoff value, and linear regression analysis is performed in each group. However, the piecewise linear regression analysis may not obtain the optimal cutoff value when data follow a non-normal distribution. Unfortunately, medical data often follows a non-normal distribution. We, therefore, performed theWilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) test with two-sided for all potential cutoff values and adopted the cutoff value that minimizes the P-value (called minimum P-value approach). Calculating the cutoff value using the minimum P-value approach is often used in the log-rank and chi-squared test but not the WMW test. First, using Monte Carlo simulations at various settings, we verified the performance of the cutoff value for the WMW test by the minimum P-value approach. Then, COVID-19 data were analyzed to demonstrate the practical applicability of the cutoff value.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it