Robust Method for Confidence Interval Estimation in Outlier-Prone Datasets: Application to Molecular and Biophysical Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating confidence intervals in small or noisy datasets is a recurring challenge in biomolecular research, particularly when data contain outliers or exhibit high variability. This study introduces a robust statistical method that combines a hybrid bootstrap procedure with Steiner’s most frequent value (MFV) approach to estimate confidence intervals without removing outliers or altering the original dataset. The MFV technique identifies the most representative value while minimizing information loss, making it well suited for datasets with limited sample sizes or non-Gaussian distributions. To demonstrate the method’s robustness, we intentionally selected a dataset from outside the biomolecular domain: a fast-neutron activation cross-section of the 109Ag(n, 2n)108mAg reaction from nuclear physics. This dataset presents large uncertainties, inconsistencies, and known evaluation difficulties. Confidence intervals for the cross-section were determined using a method called the MFV–hybrid parametric bootstrapping (MFV-HPB) framework. In this approach, the original data points were repeatedly resampled, and new values were simulated based on their uncertainties before the MFV was calculated. Despite the dataset’s complexity, the method yielded a stable MFV estimate of 709 mb with a 68.27% confidence interval of [691, 744] mb, illustrating the method’s ability to provide interpretable results in challenging scenarios. Although the example is from nuclear science, the same statistical issues commonly arise in biomolecular fields, such as enzymatic kinetics, molecular assays, and diagnostic biomarker studies. The MFV-HPB framework provides a reliable and generalizable approach for extracting central estimates and confidence intervals in situations where data are difficult to collect, replicate, or interpret. Its resilience to outliers, independence from distributional assumptions, and compatibility with small-sample scenarios make it particularly valuable in molecular medicine, bioengineering, and biophysics.
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 | 0.027 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".