ArticlePloS one2016
The Success of Linear Bootstrapping Models: Decision Domain-, Expertise-, and Criterion-Specific Meta-Analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Perceptions of Justice By Algorithms.Artificial intelligence and law · 2023Article
- Exploring the roles of trust and social group preference on the legitimacy of algorithmic decision-making vs. human decision-making for allocating COVID-19 vaccinations.AI & society · 2022Article
- People underestimate the errors made by algorithms for credit scoring and recidivism prediction but accept even fewer errors.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The success of bootstrapping or replacing a human judge with a model (e.g., an equation) has been demonstrated in Paul Meehl's (1954) seminal work and bolstered by the results of several meta-analyses. To date, however, analyses considering different types of meta-analyses as well as the potential dependence of bootstrapping success on the decision domain, the level of expertise of the human judge, and the criterion for what constitutes an accurate decision have been missing from the literature. In this study, we addressed these research gaps by conducting a meta-analysis of lens model studies. We compared the results of a traditional (bare-bones) meta-analysis with findings of a meta-analysis of the success of bootstrap models corrected for various methodological artifacts. In line with previous studies, we found that bootstrapping was more successful than human judgment. Furthermore, bootstrapping was more successful in studies with an objective decision criterion than in studies with subjective or test score criteria. We did not find clear evidence that the success of bootstrapping depended on the decision domain (e.g., education or medicine) or on the judge's level of expertise (novice or expert). Correction of methodological artifacts increased the estimated success of bootstrapping, suggesting that previous analyses without artifact correction (i.e., traditional meta-analyses) may have underestimated the value of bootstrapping models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.