Sensitivity of discrete symmetry metrics: Implications for metric choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gait asymmetry is present in several pathological populations, including those with Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, and stroke survivors. Previous studies suggest that commonly used discrete symmetry metrics, which compare single bilateral variables, may not be equally sensitive to underlying effects of asymmetry, and the use of a metric with low sensitivity could result in unnecessarily low statistical power. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of the sensitivity of commonly used discrete symmetry metrics to better inform design of future studies. Monte Carlo simulations were used to estimate the statistical power of each symmetry metric at a range of asymmetry magnitudes, group/condition variabilities, and sample sizes. Power was estimated by repeated comparison of simulated symmetric and asymmetric data with a paired t-test, where the proportion of significant results is equivalent to the power. Simulation results confirmed that not all common discrete symmetry metrics are equally sensitive to reference effects of asymmetry. Multiple symmetry metrics exhibit equivalent sensitivities, but the most sensitive discrete symmetry metric in all cases is a bilateral difference (e.g. left-right). A ratio (e.g. left/right) has poor sensitivity when group/condition variability is not small, but a log-transformation produces increased sensitivity. Additionally, two metrics which included an absolute value in their definitions showed increased sensitivity when the absolute value was removed. Future studies should consider metric sensitivity when designing analyses to reduce the possibility of underpowered 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 | 0.337 | 0.775 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".