ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Reconciling Binary Replicates: Beyond the Average.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reconciling Binary Replicates: Beyond the Average.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.