ArticleCureus2026
Nonattainability of the Fragility Index.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Nonattainability of the Fragility Index.Cureus · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe fragility index (FI) is intended to quantify how many outcome changes would be required to convert a statistically significant two-arm trial result into a nonsignificant one. A reliable statistical metric should produce a result for every valid case it evaluates. This study examined whether a fragility value is always attainable for every statistically significant trial result.
methodsFI was analyzed as follows: baseline significance was required (p < 0.05), one-way movement only, and outcome changes were restricted to converting a nonevent to an event in the arm with fewer events, while keeping the arm size fixed. Nonattainability was assessed by determining whether valid 2×2 tables exist for which no finite FI can be obtained under these rules. Evidence is provided through formal counterexamples, complete enumeration of all valid nondegenerate 2 × 2 tables up to total sample size N = 60, and empirical evaluation of published two-arm trials with binary outcomes.
resultsValid baseline-significant 2 × 2 tables exist for which FI is not attainable. A simple counterexample is {3,0,4,11}: baseline two-sided Fisher's exact p = 0.0429, the arm with fewer events is uniquely identified, but that arm has no nonevents available for the required toggle; thus, no legal FI path exists. Enumeration revealed that unattainable cases first appeared at N = 18 and then recurred at every larger sample size through N = 60; by N = 60, a total of 2,390 of 20,774 evaluable baseline-significant tables were unattainable (11.5%). In an empirical dataset of published trials, 2 of 82 baseline-significant evaluable trials (2.4%) were not attainable.
conclusionsThe FI is not universally attainable. This is a structural property of the FI algorithm, confirmed by mathematical proof, a complete table enumeration, and published trial data.
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.