ArticlePloS one2020
The aggregation paradox for statistical rankings and nonparametric tests.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The relationship between social choice aggregation rules and non-parametric statistical tests has been established for several cases. An outstanding, general question at this intersection is whether there exists a non-parametric test that is consistent upon aggregation of data sets (not subject to Yule-Simpson Aggregation Paradox reversals for any ordinal data). Inconsistency has been shown for several non-parametric tests, where the property bears fundamentally upon robustness (ambiguity) of non-parametric test (social choice) results. Using the binomial(n, p = 0.5) random variable CDF, we prove that aggregation of r(≥2) constituent data sets-each rendering a qualitatively-equivalent sign test for matched pairs result-reinforces and strengthens constituent results (sign test consistency). Further, we prove that magnitude of sign test consistency strengthens in significance-level of constituent results (strong-form consistency). We then find preliminary evidence that sign test consistency is preserved for a generalized form of aggregation. Application data illustrate (in)consistency in non-parametric settings, and links with information aggregation mechanisms (as well as paradoxes thereof) are discussed.
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.