Evaluating the median <i>p</i> -value method for assessing the statistical significance of tests when using multiple imputation
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
Rubin’s Rules are commonly used to pool the results of statistical analyses across imputed samples when using multiple imputation. Rubin’s Rules cannot be used when the result of an analysis in an imputed dataset is not a statistic and its associated standard error, but a test statistic (e.g. Student’s t-test). While complex methods have been proposed for pooling test statistics across imputed samples, these methods have not been implemented in many popular statistical software packages. The median p-value method has been proposed for pooling test statistics. The statistical significance level of the pooled test statistic is the median of the associated p-values across the imputed samples. We evaluated the performance of this method with nine statistical tests: Student’s t-test, Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Analysis of Variance, Kruskal-Wallis test, the test of significance for Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficient, the Chi-squared test, the test of significance for a regression coefficient from a linear regression and from a logistic regression. For each test, the empirical type I error rate was higher than the advertised rate. The magnitude of inflation increased as the prevalence of missing data increased. The median p-value method should not be used to assess statistical significance across imputed datasets.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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