Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41641680›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2026

Reconciling Binary Replicates: Beyond the Average.

H Lorenzo, P Pudlo, M Royer-Carenzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

H LorenzoUMR 7373, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, I2M, Aix Marseille Univ, Marseille, France.
P PudloUMR 7373, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, I2M, Aix Marseille Univ, Marseille, France.
M Royer-CarenziUMR 7373, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, I2M, Aix Marseille Univ, Marseille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2392-1120

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Binary observations are often repeated to improve data quality, creating technical replicates. Several scoring methods are commonly used to infer the actual individual state and obtain a probability for each state. The common practice of averaging replicates has limitations, and alternative methods for scoring and classifying individuals are proposed. Additionally, an indecisive response might be wiser than classifying all individuals based on their replicates in the medical context, where 1 indicates a particular health condition. Building on the inherent limitations of the averaging approach, three alternative methods are examined: the median, maximum penalized likelihood estimation, and a Bayesian algorithm. The theoretical analysis suggests that the proposed alternatives outperform the averaging approach, especially the Bayesian method, which incorporates uncertainty and provides credible intervals. Simulations and real-world medical datasets are used to demonstrate the practical implications of these methods for improving diagnostic accuracy and disease prevalence estimation.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBayes TheoremComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLikelihood FunctionsModels, StatisticalPrevalenceBayesian algorithmexpectation–maximization algorithmmedianmedical diagnosisprevalence estimationtechnical replicates

Identifiers

PMID41641680
PMCPMC12874543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.