3.5 – Statistics of error

Making sense of error in data.

This page explains how statistics of error help quantify differences between measured and true values, beginning with classical methods like standard error and confidence intervals that rely on large-sample assumptions. Related, statisticians talk about uncertainty — the quantification of doubt about a measurement. We introduce permutation-based approaches, including jackknife and bootstrap resampling, which avoid those assumptions and are especially useful with smaller or complex data sets. Observer variation (intra- and interobserver error) is also highlighted as an important source of measurement error.

Missing values are another common source of uncertainty in biological data sets. Data may be missing because of equipment failure, recording mistakes, sample loss, or biological factors that prevent a measurement from being collected. Even a small number of missing observations can influence summaries, graphs, and statistical tests, especially in smaller studies. In this chapter, we treat missing values mainly as a practical issue to identify and report during exploratory data analysis. Later, in the chapter on experimental design, we examine missing data in greater depth, including differences between random and non-random missingness, as well as approaches such as data imputation and the consequences these choices may have for interpretation.

We conclude with a discussion about confidence intervals as a measure of accuracy and emphasize proper use of significant figures to avoid overstating precision.

Statistics of error.

In statistics, error doesn’t mean mistake, an avoidable human misjudgement or oversight, eg, a typo. An error in statistics means there was a difference between the measured value and the actual value for an object. Efforts by many authors of notable classical statistics developed a large body of calculated statistics, eg, standard error the mean, which allows the user to quantify how large the error of measurement is given assumptions about the distribution of the errors. Thus, classical statistics requires user to make assumptions about the error distribution, the subject of our Chapter 6. A critical issue to understand is that these methods assume large sample sizes are available; they are called asymptotic statistics or large-sample statistics; the properties of the statistical estimates are evaluated as sample size approaches infinity.

Jackknife sampling and bootstrap sampling are permutation approaches to working with data when the Central Limit Theorem — as sample size increases, the distribution of sample means will tend to a normal distribution (see Chapter 6.7) — is unlikely to apply or, rather, we don’t wish to make that assumption (Chapter 19). The jackknife is a sampling method involving repeatedly sampling from the original data set, but each time leaving one value out. The estimator, for example, the sample mean, is calculated for each sample. The repeated estimates from the jackknife approach yield many estimates which, collected, are used to calculate the sample variance. Jackknife estimators tend to be less biased than those from classical asymptotic statistics.

Bootstrapping, and not jackknife resampling, may now be the preferred permutation approach (eg, Google Scholar search “bootstrap statistics” 36K hits; “jackknife statistics” 17K hits), but which method is best depends on qualities of the data set. Bootstrapping involves large numbers of permutations of the original data, which, in short, means we repeatedly take many samples of our data and recalculate our statistics on these sets of sampled data. We obtain statistical significance by comparing our result from the original data against how often results from our permutations on the resampled data sets exceed the originally observed results. By permutation methods, the goal is to avoid the assumptions made by large-sample statistical inference, ie, reaching conclusions about the population based on samples from the population. Since its introduction, “bootstrapping” has been shown to be superior in many — but, importantly, not all — cases for statistics of error compared to the standard, classical approach (Efron 1979, Hesterberg 2015).

There are many advocates for the permutation approaches, and, because we have computers now instead of the hand calculators our statistics ancestors used, permutation methods may be the approach you will take in your own work. However, the classical approach has its strengths — when the conditions, that is, when the assumptions of asymptotic statistics are met by the data, then the classical approaches tend to be less conservative than the permutation methods. By conservative, statisticians mean that a test performs at the level we expect it to. Thus, if the assumptions of classical statistics are met they return the correct answer more often than do the permutation tests.

Error and the observer.

Individual researchers make observations, therefore, we can talk about observer variation as a kind of error measurement. For repeated measures of the same object by an individual, we would expect the individual to return the same results. To the extent repeated measures differ, this is intraobserver error. In contrast, measures of the same object from different individuals is interobserver error. For a new instrument or measurement system, one would need to establish the reliability of the measure: confronted with the same object do researchers get the same measurement? Accounting for interobserver error applies in many fields, eg, histopathology of putative carcinoma slides (Franc et al 2003), liver biopsies for cirrhosis (Rousselet et al 2005), blood cell counts (Bacus 1973).

Confidence in estimates.

A really useful concept in statistics is the idea that you can assign how confident you are to an estimate. This is another way to speak of the accuracy of an estimate. Clearly, we have more confidence in a sample estimate for a population parameter if many observations are made. Another factor in our ability to estimate is the magnitude of observation differences. In general, the larger the differences among values from repeated trials, the less confident we will be in out estimate, unless, again, we make our estimates from a large collection of observations. These two quantities, sample size and variability, along with our level of confidence, eg, 95%, are incorporated into a statistic called the confidence interval.

We will use this concept a lot throughout the course; for now, a simple but approximate confidence interval is to use the 2 x SEM rule (as long as sample size large): twice the standard error of the mean. Take your estimate of the mean, then add (upper limit) or subtract (lower limit) twice the value of the standard error of the mean (if you recall, that’s the standard deviation divided by the square-root of the sample size).

Example. Consider five magnetic darts thrown at a dart board (28 cm diameter, height of 1.68m from the floor) from a distance of 3.15 meters (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Magnetic dart board with 5 darts. Click image to view full sized image.

The distance in centimeters (cm) between where each of the five darts landed on the board compared to the bullseye is reported in (Table 1),

Table 1. Results of five darts thrown at a target (Figure 2)*

* distance in centimeters from the center. 

How precise was the dart thrower? We’ll use the coefficient of variation as a measure of precision. Second, how accurate were the throws? Use R to calculate

darts = c(7.5, 3.0, 1.0, 2.7, 7.4)
#use the coefficient of variation to describe precision of the throws
coefVar = 100*(sd(darts)/mean(darts)); coefVar
[1] 68.46141

Confidence Interval to describe accuracy.

For a game of darts, the true value would be a distance of zero — all bullseyes. We need to calculate the standard error of the mean (SEM), then, we calculate the confidence interval around the sample mean.

#Calculate the SEM
SEM <- sd(darts)/sqrt(length(darts)); SEM
[1] 1.322649
#now, get the lower and upper limit, subtract from the mean
confidence <- c(mean(darts)-2*SEM, mean(darts), mean(darts)+2*SEM); confidence
[1] 1.674702, 4.320000, 6.965298

The mean was 4.3 cm, therefore to get the lower limit of the interval subtract 2.65 (2*SEM = 2.645298) from the mean; for the upper limit add 2.65 to the mean. Thus, we report our approximate confidence interval as (1.7, 7.0), and we read this as saying we are about 95% confident the population value is between these two limits. Five is a very small sample number, so we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that our approximate confidence interval would be less than adequate. In statistical terms, we would use the t-distribution, and not the normal distribution, to make our confidence interval in cases like this.

We made a quick calculation of the confidence interval; we can get make this calculation by hand by incorporating the t distribution. We need to know the degrees of freedom, which in this case is 4 (n – 1, where n = 5). We look up critical value of t at 5% (to get our 95% confidence interval), t = 2.78. Subtract for lower limit t*SEM and add for upper limit t*SEM to the sample mean for the 95% confidence interval.

We can get help from R, by using the one-sample t-test with a test against the hypothesis that the true mean is equal to zero. Among a variety of output we will introduce later (see Chapter 8 and 10), the confidence interval is reported (yellow highlight),

#make an attach a data frame object
Ddarts <- data.frame(darts)
t.test(darts,mu=0)
One Sample t-test
data: darts
t = 3.2662, df = 4, p-value = 0.0309
alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
 0.6477381 7.9922619
sample estimates:
mean of x 
 4.32

t.test uses the function qt(), which provides the quantile function. To recreate the 95% CI without the additional baggage output from the t.test, we would simply write

#upper limit
mean(darts)+ qt(0.975,df=4)*sd(darts)/sqrt(5)

#lower limit
mean(darts)+ qt(0.025, df = 4, lower.tail=TRUE)*sd(darts)/sqrt(5)

where sd(darts)/sqrt(5) is the standard error of the mean.

Or, alternatively, download and take advantage of a small package called Rmisc (not to be confused with the RcmdrMisc package) and use the function CI

library(Rmisc)
CI(darts)
     upper     mean     lower 
7.9922619 4.3200000 0.6477381

The advantage of using the CI() command from the package Rmisc is pretty clear; I don’t have to specify the degrees of freedom or the standard error of the mean. By default, CI reports the 95% confidence interval. we can specify any interval simply by adding to the command. For example, 

CI(darts, ci=0.90)

reports upper and lower limits for the 90% confidence interval.

Try it. On your own, get the 90% confidence interval and the 99% confidence intervals for our dart example. Compare to the 95% confidence interval — what do you conclude about “confidence” in our estimate from 90% to 99%?

Confidence intervals from p-values.

And finally, it is not unusual for a report to provide summary statistics, differences between means (ie, effect size), and p-values (orange highlight), but not report confidence intervals. We discuss p-values and the concept of statistical significance beginning in Chapter 8. But for now, we show how to calculate approximate confidence intervals from the p-value. This may be of use for conducting meta-analysis (Chapter 20.15). See two helpful “how to” articles by Bland and Altman in 2011 BMJ (references listed in Chapter 3.6 – References). 

In brief, calculate the test statistic for a normal distribution (letZ), calculate a standard error, and then the lower and upper limits for the 95% confidence interval. We illustrate use of the calculator formulas with the dart example, the p-value was 0.0309; the estimate was 4.32.

R code

letZ = (-0.862 + sqrt(0.743 - 2.404*log(0.0309, base = exp(1)))) = 2.154903
letSE = 4.32/letZ = 2.00473
1.96*letSE = 3.929271 # Add for upper and subtract for lower

The lower limit is 0.39 (4.32 – 3.929271) and the upper limit is 8.25 (4.32 + 3.929271). Although in the ballpark, these calculated estimates are wider than the confidence interval estimated by the t.test command. Small sample size, n = 5, is to blame — the accuracy of these methods, based on asymptotic statistical estimation approaches, assumes the law of large numbers applies.

Significant figures.

And finally, we should respect significant figures, the number of digits which have meaning. Our data were measured to the nearest tenth of a centimeter, or two significant figures. Therefore, if we report the confidence interval as (0.6477381, 7.9922619), then we imply a false level of precision, unless we also report our random sampling error of measurement.

R has a number of ways to manage output. One option would be to set number of figures globally with the options() function — all values reported by R would hold for the entire session. For example, options(digits=3) would report all numbers to three significant figures. Instead, I prefer to use signif() function, which allows us to report just the values we wish and does not change reporting behavior for the entire session.

signif(CI(darts),2)
upper  mean lower 
 8.00  4.30  0.65

The R function signif() applies rounding rules. We apply rounding rules when required to report estimates to appropriate levels of precision. Rounding procedures are used to replace a number with a simplified approximation. Wikipedia provides a comprehensive list of rounding rules. Notable rules include 

• directed rounding to an integer, eg, rounding up or down
• rounding to nearest integer, eg, round half up (down) if the number ends with 5
• randomly rounding to an integer, eg, stochastic rounding.

With the exception of stochastic rounding, all rounding methods impose biases on the sets of numbers. For example, the round half up method applied for numbers above 5, round down for numbers below 5 will increase the variance of the sample. In R, use round() for most of your work. If you need one of the other approaches, for example, to round up, the command is ceiling(); to round down we use floor().

When to round?

No doubt your previous math classes have cautioned you about the problems of rounding error and their influence on calculation. So, as a reminder, if reporting calls for rounding, then always round after you’ve completed your calculations, never during the calculations themselves. 

A final note about significant figures and rounding. While the recommendations about reporting statistics are easy to come by (and often very proscriptive, eg, Table 1, Cole 2015), there are other concerns. Meta-analysis, which are done by collecting information from multiple studies, would benefit if more and not fewer numbers are reported, for the very same reason that we don’t round during calculations.

Questions

1. Calculate the correct 90% and 99% confidence intervals for the dart data using the t-distribution
   • by hand
   • by one alternative method in R, demonstrated with examples in this page
2. How many significant figures should be used for the volumetric pipettor p1000? The p200? The p20 (data at end of this page)?
3. Another function, round(), can be used. Try

round(CI(darts),2)

1. • and report the results: vary the significant figures from 1 to 10 (signif() will take digits up to 22).
   • See any output differences between signif() and round()? Don’t forget to take advantage of R help pages (eg, enter ?round at the R prompt) and see Wikipedia.
2. Compare rounding by signif() and round() for the number 0.12345. Can you tell which rounding method the two functions use? 
3. Calculate the coefficient of variation (CV) for each of the three volumetric pipettors from the data at end of this page. Rank the CV from smallest to largest. Which pipettor had the smallest CV and would therefore be judged the most precise? 
4. (data provided at end of this page, click here).
5. Standards distinguish between within run precision and between run precision of a measurement instrument (see Chapter 16.5 – Instrument reliability and validity). The data in Table 1 were all recorded within 15 minutes by one operator. What kind pf precision was measured?
6. Calculate the standard error of the means for each of the three pipettors from the data
7. (data provided at end of this page, click here).
8. Calculate the approximate confidence interval using the 2SE rule and judge which of the three pipettors is the most accurate (narrowest confidence interval)
   • Repeat, but this time apply your preferred R method for obtaining confidence intervals.
   • Compare approximate and R method confidence intervals. How well did the approximate method work?
9. Return to the dart example, but now assume the p-value was p = 0.003 and again for p = 0.0003. Estimate the 95% confidence interval for each case; the difference remains 4.32. How does the change in p-value, from 0.03 to 0.0003 — a two orders of magnitude difference — affect the estimates for the confidence interval (hint: describe the width of the CI)?

Quiz Chapter 3.5

Statistics of error

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Data sets

Pipette calibration

Chapter 3 continues

• Introduction
• Data types
• Exploring data
• Measures of Central Tendency
• Measures of dispersion
• Estimating parameters
• Statistics of error
• References and suggested readings

20.1 – Area under the curve

Introduction.

The classical physiological area under the curve, AUC, represents the total change in given change in . For example, if is time, and is oxygen consumption — eg, respirometry: recorded as an analog voltage output (millivolts or volts) from a gas analyzer to a data acquisition (DAQ) board — an AUC would be appropriate to quantify the total oxygen consumption following strenuous exercise (Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, EPOC) or following a large meal (Specific Dynamic Action, SDA).  The area represents the total, cumulative volume of oxygen consumed over that specific timeframe, eg, calculating an individual’s total EPOC.

In machince learning, the axes are probabilities and error rates. The area tells you how accurate a decision-making model is. We plot True Positive Rate (Sensitivity) against False Positive Rate (1 – Specificity) across every possible mathematical decision threshold (from 0% to 100% confidence). The curve now represents the shifting balance between catching true positives and committing false positives and the area summarizes how cleanly the model separates two distinct classes, eg, Sick vs. healthy. An area of 1.0 means perfect separation with zero overlap.

Area under the relative (receiver) operating carrier, AUROC, shows characteristics of a diagnostic model, a graphic used to show trade off between sensitivity and specificity. Classifier performance. Used to find the appropriate cut-off. Plot true positive rates against false positive rates as cumulative functions, shows the relationship between sensitivity and specificity for every possible cut off value. Can then calculate AUC to get a measure of the intervention’s ability to discriminate between true and false positive rates.

Related, area under precision-recall curve, AUPRC, is a single scalar metric that measures a binary classification model’s ability to balance precision (how many predicted positives are actually positive) and recall (how many actual positives are caught) across all possible decision thresholds. Here, precision and recall refer to both the accuracy of the model’s positive predictions and its ability to find all the positive cases.

From Chapter 7 we defined

where is true positives and is false positives.

We now introduce recall, which is also refered to as sensitivity

Precision measures the quality of your model’s positive guesses; Recall measures how many actual positive cases in the dataset were identified by the model.

AUC evaluates a model’s ability to distinguish between both and equally, while AUPRC focuses strictly on the model’s performance regarding the positive (rare) class.

AUC would be preferred when your dataset is balanced (equal positives and negatives) OR when you care equally about performance on both classes. For example, dataset of patients with flu or Covid from a clinic during winter months where there is roughly balanced 50/50 split of patients presenting with either Flu or Covid. You want a model that accurately classifies both which favors AUC approach.

AUPRC would be the choice when your dataset is highly imbalanced, ie, the positive class is rare. In contrast, AUPRC would be favored for scenarios where a researcher is screening 100,000 asymptomatic patients for a rare disease that only 10 people actually have.

Physiology Area under the curve

Download and install R package MESS; requires geepack, geeM, and Matrix packages

R code

x <- seq(1:10) 
y <- c(1,4,5,2,11,22,9,7,5,1) 
#length(x)==length(y)
#smooth the data 
loxy <- loess(y~x)
#Make a plot (Fig. 1)
plot(x,y, pch=19, cex=2, col="blue") 
lines(predict(loxy), type="l", col="red")

where == is an R comparison operator.

And R output

Figure 1. Area under the curve example.

library(MESS) 
auc(x,y,from=0,rule=2) 
auc(x,loxy$fitted,from=0,rule=2)

And R output

#area under curve for raw data
[1] 67
#area under curve for smoothed data
[1] 66.77616

Machine Learning area under the curve.

# Install and load the ROCR package if you haven't already
# install.packages("ROCR")
# modified from https://rviews.rstudio.com/2019/03/01/some-r-packages-for-roc-curves/

library(ROCR)
df <- data.frame(ROCR.simple)
pred <- prediction(df$predictions, df$labels)
perf <- performance(pred,"tpr","fpr")

# 1. Calculate the actual numeric AUC value
auc_perf <- performance(pred, "auc")
auc_value <- round(unlist(auc_perf@y.values), 4)

# 2. Plot the ROC curve with colorized thresholds and custom labels
plot(perf, 
colorize = TRUE, 
main = "ROC Curve",
xlab = "False Positive Rate (1 - Specificity)",
ylab = "True Positive Rate (Sensitivity)")

# 3. Add the AUC value as a subtitle
mtext(paste("AUC =", auc_value), side = 3, line = 0.5)

# 4. Add a diagonal 50/50 reference line
abline(a = 0, b = 1, lty = 2, col = "darkgray")

End R code.

R output.

The calculated AUC was . The right-hand axes are color codes by AUC values (Fig 2): good tests AUC between 0.8 and 0.9, very good tests greater than 0.9.

Figure 2. Example ROC curve.

Area under the precision recall curve

AUPRC measures the overall performance of a binary classification model by summarizing how well it balances precision and recall across all possible decision thresholds. A score closer to 1.0 means the model is very good at finding real positive cases without making many mistakes, which is especially useful when your dataset has very few positive examples. A score closer to 1.0 means the model is very good at finding real positive cases without making many mistakes.

R code.

library(ROCR)

# 1. Prepare data and prediction object
df <- data.frame(ROCR.simple)
pred <- prediction(df$predictions, df$labels)

# 2. Extract Precision and Recall for the plot
perf_pr <- performance(pred, measure = "prec", x.measure = "rec")

# 3. Calculate the numeric AUPRC value
# In ROCR, AUPRC is calculated by finding the Area Under the Precision/Recall curve ("aucpr")
perf_auprc <- performance(pred, measure = "aucpr")
auprc_value <- round(unlist(perf_auprc@y.values), 4)

# Print the final AUPRC score to the console
cat("The calculated AUPRC is:", auprc_value, "\n")

# 4. Plot the Precision-Recall Curve using base R graphics
plot(perf_pr, 
colorize = TRUE, 
main = paste("Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC =", auprc_value, ")"),
xlab = "Recall (Sensitivity)", 
ylab = "Precision (Positive Predictive Value)")

End R code.

R output.

The calculated AUPRC was .

Figure 3. Precision recall curve.

The differences: AUC evaluates how well the model separates both classes equally, while AUPRC evaluates how reliably the model handles the positive class alone.

The Interpretive baselines:

• Figure 2: AUC Baseline is always 0.5. A completely random model yields a diagonal line from (0,0) to (1,1), resulting in an AUC of 0.5. This baseline never changes, regardless of how rare your disease is.
• Figure 3: AUPRC Baseline depends on prevalence. A random model yields a flat horizontal line across the plot. The height of this line equals the proportion of positive cases in your dataset (). If only 1% of the patients have a rare condition, a random model’s AUPRC baseline is 0.01.

What a shifting threshold means:

• On an AUC Curve: As you lower your decision threshold to catch more sick people, you track how fast your True Positive Rate rises compared to your False Positive Rate. You are looking at the overall trade-off between the entire healthy population and the entire sick population.
• On an AUPRC Curve: As you lower your threshold to catch more sick people, you track Recall against Precision. This evaluates the quality of the “Positive” alerts. It directly measures how quickly the pool of patients you flagged as “high risk” becomes diluted with false alarms.

References and suggested readings

Çorbacıoğlu, Ş. K., & Aksel, G. (2023). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis in diagnostic accuracy studies: A guide to interpreting the area under the curve value. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, 23(4), 195–198.

Lobo, J. M., Jiménez-Valverde, A., & Real, R. (2008). AUC: A misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 17(2), 145–151.

Martin, B., Bennett, T. D., DeWitt, P. E., Russell, S., & Sanchez-Pinto, L. N. (2025). Use of the Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve to Evaluate Prediction Models of Rare Critical Illness Events. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, 26(6), e855–e859.

Ozenne, B., Subtil, F., & Maucort-Boulch, D. (2015). The precision–recall curve overcame the optimism of the receiver operating characteristic curve in rare diseases. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(8), 855–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.02.010

Steyerberg, E. W., & Vergouwe, Y. (2014). Towards better clinical prediction models: Seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. European Heart Journal, 35(29), 1925–1931.

Questions

1. Write up three learning outcomes for this page. Hint: Point your favorite generative AI to this page and ask for help

Chapter 20 contents

• Additional topics
• Area under the curve
• Peak detection
• Baseline correction
• Surveys
• Time series
• Dimensional analysis
• Estimating population size
• Diversity indexes
• Survival analysis
• Growth equations and dose response calculations
• Plot a Newick tree
• Phylogenetically independent contrasts
• How to get the distances from a distance tree
• Binary classification
• Meta-analysis

/MD

3.4 – Estimating parameters

Introduction.

What you will find on this page. Definitions for constants, variables, and parameters as used in data analytics. Statistical bias and the concept of unbiased estimators are discussed. The different types of error are introduced along with definitions of accuracy and precision. Statistics used to quantify error are presented in the next section, Chapter 3.4.

Estimating parameters.

Parameters belong to populations; they are fixed but unknown. Parameters are characteristics of populations: the typical average height and weight of five year old children; What is the normal range of values for height and weight of five year old children; average and range of gene expression of TP53 in epithelial lung cells of 50 year old non-smoking humans; etc. Because we generally do not have at our disposal surveys — census — of entire populations for these characteristics, we sample and calculate descriptive statistics for a subset of individuals from populations: these statistics, the mean height, range of height, etc., are variables. We expect average height, range of height, etc., to change, to vary, from sample to sample. A constant, as the word implies, is not variable and remains unchanged. 

We estimate parameters (means, variances) from samples of observations from a population. Intuitively then, our estimates are only as good as how representative of the population the sample is. Statistics allows us to be more precise: we can define “how good” our estimates are by asking about, and quantifying, the accuracy and precision of our estimates.

Notwithstanding the notion of “personalized medicine,” our goal in science is to understand cause and effect among sets of observations on samples from a population. We ask, what is the link between lung cancer and smoking? We know that smoking tobacco cigarettes increases risk of cancer, but not everyone who smokes will get cancer (Pesch et al., 2012). Tumorigenic risk is in part mediated by heredity (cf. Trifiletti et al 2017). That’s one way we run into problems in statistics: the biological phenomenon is complicated in ways we are not yet aware of, and thus samples drawn from populations are heterogeneous. Put another way, we think there is one population, but there may be many distinct populations. By chance, repeated samples drawn from the population include individuals with different risk associated with heredity.

As an aside, this is precisely why the concept of personalized medicine is important.  Medical researchers have learned that some people with breast cancer respond to treatment with trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody, but others do not (review in Valabrega et al 2007).  Responders have more copies of a gene, copy number variation, for an EGF-like receptor called HER2. In contrast, non-responders to trastuzumab have fewer copies of this receptor (and are said to be HER2-negative in an antibody test for HER2).  Thus, we speak about people with breast cancer as if the disease is the same, and from a statistical point of view, we would assume that individuals with breast cancer are of the same population.  But they are not — and so the treatment fails for some, but works for others.  In this example, we have a mechanism or cause to explain why some do not respond; their breast cancer is not associated with increased copy numbers of HER2.  And so in studies with breast cancer, statisticians may account for differences in HER2 status. Note: Fewer than 30% of breast cancer may have over-expression of HER2, (Bilous et al. 2003).

Clearly, HER2 status would be used by statisticians when drawing samples from population, and we would not mistake samples.  But, in many other situations we are not aware of any differences and so we assume our samples come from the same population. Note that even with imperfect knowledge about samples, experimental design is intended to help mediate heterogeneous samples. For example, this is why treatment controls need to be used, or case controls are included in studies.

Random assignment to groups also is an attempt to control for unknowns: if random, then all treatment groups will likely include representatives of the numerous co-factors that contribute to risk.

Statisticians have an additional, technical burden: there are often a variety of ways (algorithms) to describe or make inferences about samples, and they are not equally capable of giving us “truth.”  Estimates of a parameter are not going to be exactly the true value of the parameter!  This is the problem of identifying unbiased ways to estimate parameters. In statistics, bias quantifies whether an algorithm to calculate a particular statistic (e.g., the mean or variance), is consistently too low or too high. 

Random sampling.

Random sampling from the population is likely to be our best procedure for obtaining representative samples, but it is not foolproof (we’ll return to situations where random sampling fails to provide adequate samples of populations in Chapter 5.5 Importance of randomization in experimental design). However, a second concern is how to calculate the mean, how to calculate the variance. In the section on Descriptive Statistics (Chapter 3.2), we presented how to calculate the arithmetic mean — the simple average — but also introduced you to other calculations for the middle (e.g., median, geometric mean, harmonic mean). How to know which “middle” is correct?

Statisticians use the concept of bias — the simple arithmetic mean is an unbiased estimator of the population parameter, but a correction needs to be made to the calculation of sample variance to remove bias. Bias implies that the estimator systematically misses the target in some way. Good or “best” parameter estimates are, on average, going to be close to the actual parameter if we collected many samples of the population (this will depend on the sample size and the variability of the data). Earlier we introduced Bessel’s correction to the sample variance, divide the sum of squares by n – 1 and not N as we did for the population variance, so that it is an unbiased estimator of the sample variance.  Thus, statisticians have worked out how well their statistical equations work as estimators; concepts of expected values or the expectation are used to evaluate how well an estimator works. In statistics, the expected value of a statistic is calculated by multiplying each of the possible outcomes by the likelihood each outcome will occur and then summing all of those values..

We need to add a bit more to our discussion about measurement and estimation.

Types of error.

To measure is to assign a number to something, a variable. Measurements can have multiple levels, but are of the four data types: nominal, ordinal, interval scale, and ratio scale. Nominal and ordinal types are categorical or qualitative; interval and ratio are continuous or quantitative. Errors in measurement represent differences between what is observed and recorded compared with the true value, i.e., the actual population value. With respect to measurement we distinguish between random errors and systematic errors. Random errors occur by chance, and are thus expected to vary from one measurement instance from another. Random error may lead to measures larger or smaller than the true value. Systematic errors are of a kind that can be attributed to failures of an experimental design or instrument.

Accuracy is reflected in the question: how close to the true value is our measure? Accuracy is distinct from precision, the concept of how clustered together are repeated values for the same measurement. All measurement has associated error, which may be divided into two kinds: random error and systematic error.

We tend to think of error in terms of mistakes, mistakes by us or as failure of the measurement process. However, in biology research, that is too restrictive of a meaning for error. First, experimental error occurs when the estimates derived from the samples — sample mean, sample variance — differ from the population parameters — population mean, population variance. Second, error in biology ranges from mistakes in data collection to real differences among individuals for a characteristic. The latter source, error among individuals, is of course, not a mistake, but rather, it’s the “very spice of life” (Cowper 1845). We’ll leave the study of individual differences, biological error, for later. This section is concerned with error in the sense of mistakes.

Random error includes things like chance error in an instrument leading to different repeat measures of the same thing and to the reality that individual differences exist for most biological traits. We minimize the effects of this kind of error by randomizing: we randomly select samples from populations; we randomly assign samples to treatment groups. Random error can make it hard to differentiate treatment effects. Random error decreases precision, the repeatability of measures. At worse, random error is conservative — it tends to mean we miss group differences, we conclude that the treatment (e.g., aspirin analgesics) has no effect on the condition (e.g., migraines). This kind of error is referred to as a Type II error (Chapter 8).

The experimental design remedy for random error is to increase sample size, a key conclusion drawn from power analysis on experiments, discussed in Chapter 11. The other type of error, systematic error, a type of bias, is more in line with the idea of errors being synonymous with mistakes. Uncalibrated instruments yield incorrect measures. And these kinds of errors lead us to make errors that can be more problematic. An example? Back in the early 1990s when I started research on whole animal metabolic rates (e.g., Dohm et al 1994, Beck et al 1995), we routinely set baseline carbon dioxide, CO₂, levels to 0.035% of volume of dry air (350 ppm, parts per million), which reflected ambient levels of CO₂ at the time (see Figure 4 in Chapter 4.6).

#NOAA monthly data from Mauna Loa Observatory
co2.1994 <- c(358.22, 358.98, 359.91, 361.32, 361.68, 360.80, 359.39, 357.42, 355.63, 356.09, 357.56, 358.87)

You are probably aware, today, background CO₂ have increased considerably even since the 1980s. Data for 2021 (average 420 ppm — reporting just 2 significant figures) are provided below

co2.2021 <- c(415.49, 416.72, 417.61, 419.01, 419.09, 418.93, 416.9, 414.42, 413.26, 413.9, 414.97, 416.67)

source: Global Monitoring Lab, NOAA

Thus, if I naively compared rates of CO₂ produced by an animal at rest, , measured today against the data I gathered back in the 1990s without account for the change in background CO₂ in my analysis, I will have committed a systematic error: values of on animals would be systematically higher than values for 1988 when I apply a baseline correction.

Examples of error. 

One under-reported cost of next-generation sequencing technologies is that base calls, the process of assigning a nucleotide base to chromatogram peaks has more errors than traditional Sanger-based sequencing methods (Fox et al 2014). In “next-generation-sequencing” (NGS) methods, individual DNA fragments are assigned sequences, whereas Sanger methods took the average sequence of a collection of DNA fragments; thus, in principle, NGS methods should be able to characterize variation of mixtures of sequences in ways not available to traditional sequencing approaches. However, artifacts introduced in sample preparation and PCR amplification lead to base calling errors (Fox et al 2014).

Gene expression levels will differ among tissue types, thus mixed samples from different tissues will misrepresent gene expression levels.

Measurement of energy expenditure, oxygen uptake and carbon dioxide release by an organism, have long been sources of study in ecology and other disciplines. A classic measure is called basal metabolic rate, measured as the rate of oxygen consumption of an endothermic animal, post-absorptive (i.e., not digesting food), at rest but not sleeping, while the animal is contained within a thermal-neutral environment (Blaxter 1989). 

Accuracy and precision.

Two properties of measurement are the accuracy of the measure and its precision. Accuracy is defined as the closeness of a measured value to its true value. Precision refers to the closeness of a second measure to the first, to the closeness of a third measure to the first and second, and so on. Precision refers to repeatability of measurement.  We suggested use of the coefficient of variation, defined with examples in Chapter 3.2, as a way to quantify precision.

Consider the accuracy and precision of three volumetric pipettors: p1000, which has a nominal range between 100 and 1000 μL (microliters); p200, which has a range between 20 and 200 μL; p100, which has a range between 10 and 100 μL. Which of these three pipettors do you think would have the best accuracy and precision for dispensing 100 μL? We can test pipettors by measuring the mass of distilled water dispensed by the pipettor on an analytical balance. For 100 μL of distilled water at standard temperature and pressure conditions, the mass of the water would be 0.100 grams. The results are shown in the table, and a dot plot is shown in the figure to help us see the numbers.

Table 1. Mass (grams) of 100 μL of distilled water dispensed by three volumetric pipettors*

*Temperature 21.5 °C, barometric pressure 76.28 cm mercury (elevation 52 meters). Data presented in Table 1 were not corrected to standard temperature or pressure.

Here is the code for the R run; assuming that you have started R commander, then copy and paste each line into the R Commander script window; if not, enter the script one line at a time in the R console. Recall that the hashtag, #, is used to add comment lines.

#create the variables
p1000 <- c(0.113, 0.114, 0.113, 0.115, 0.113, 0.112, 0.113, 0.111, 0.114, 0.112)
p100 <- c(0.101, 0.1, 0.1, 0.101, 0.101, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.101, 0.1)
p200 <- c(0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.099, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.101, 0.1)

#create a data frame
pipet <- data.frame(p100,p200,p1000)
attach(pipet)

#stack the data
stackPipet <- stack(pipet[, c("p100","p200","p1000")])
#Add variable names
names(stackPipet) <- c("mass", "pipet")
#create the dot plot
with(stackPipet, RcmdrMisc::Dotplot(mass, by=pipet, bin=FALSE))

From Table 1 we see that the means for the p100 and p200 were both close to the target mass of 0.1 g. The mean for the p1000, however, was higher than the target mass of 0.1 g.  A dot plot is a good way to display measurements (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Dot plot of pipet results.

From the dot plot we can quickly see that the p1000 was both inaccurate (the data fall well above the true value), and lacked precision (the values were spread about the mean value). The other two pipettors showed accuracy and looked to be similar in precision, although only two of ten values for the p200 were off target compared to four of ten values for the p100. Thus, we would conclude that the p200 was best at dispensing 100 microliters of water.

In the next chapter we apply statistics to estimate our confidence in this conclusion. In contrast to measurement, estimation implies calculation of a value. In statistics, estimates may be a point, e.g., a value of a collection of data, or an interval, e.g., a confidence interval.

Summary.

This is your first introduction into the concept of experimental design, as defined by statisticians! One of the key tasks for a statistical analyst is to have an appreciation for measurement accuracy and precision as established in the experiment. Precise and accurate measurement levels determine how well questions about the experiment can be answered. At one extreme, if a measure is imprecise, but accurate, then it will be challenging to quantify differences between a control group and a treatment group. At the other extreme, if the measure is precise, but inaccurate, the danger would be differences between the treatment and control group may be more likely, even when the groups are truly not different!

Questions.

1. List the types of error in measuring mRNA expression levels on a gene for a sampling of cells from biopsy of normal tissue and a biopsy of a tumor. Assume use of NEXGEN methods for measuring gene expression. Distinguish between technical errors and biological errors.
2. If confidence interval are useful for estimating accuracy, what statistic do we call to quantify precision?

Quiz Chapter 3.4

Estimating parameters

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 3 contents

• Exploring data
• Data types
• Measures of Central Tendency
• Measures of dispersion
• Estimating parameters
• Statistics of error
• References and suggested readings

8.3 – Sampling distribution and hypothesis testing

Introduction

Understanding the relationship between sampling distributions, probability distributions, and hypothesis testing is the crucial concept in the NHST — Null Hypothesis Significance Testing — approach to inferential statistics. is crucial, and many introductory text books are excellent here. I will add some here to their discussion, perhaps with a different approach, but the important points to take from the lecture and text are as follows.

Our motivation in conducting research often culminates in the ability (or inability) to make claims like:

1. “Total cholesterol greater than 185 mg/dl increases risk of coronary artery disease.”
2. “Average height of US men aged 20 is 70 inches (1.78 m).”
3. “Species of amphibians are disappearing at unprecedented rates.”

Lurking beneath these statements of “fact” for populations (just what IS the population for #1, for #2, and for #3?) is the understanding that not ALL members of the population were recorded.

How do we go from our sample to the population we are interested in? Put another way — How good is our sample? We’ve talked about how “biostatistics” can be generalized as sets of procedures you use to make inferences about what’s happening in populations. These procedures include:

• Have an interesting question
• Experimental design (Observational study? Experimental study?)
• Sampling from populations (Random? Haphazard?)
• Hypotheses: H_O and H_A
• Estimate parameters (characterize the population)
• Tests of hypotheses (inferences)

We have control of each of these — we choose what to study, we design experiments to test our hypotheses…We have already introduced these topics (Chapters 6 – 8).

We also obtain estimates of parameters, and inferential statistics applies to how we report our descriptive statistics (Chapter 3). Estimates of parameters like the sample mean and sample standard deviation can be assessed for accuracy and precision (eg, confidence intervals).

Sampling distribution

Imagine drawing a sample of 30 from a population, calculating the sample mean for a variable (eg, systolic blood pressure), then calculating a second sample mean after drawing a new sample of 30 from the same population. Repeat, accumulating one estimate of the mean, over and over again. What will be the shape of this distribution of sample means? The Central Limit Theorem states that the shape will be a normal distribution, regardless of whether or not the population distribution was normal, as long as the sample size is large (ie, Law of Large Numbers). We alluded to this concept when we introduced discrete and continuous distributions (Chapter 6).

It’s this result from theoretical statistics that allows us to calculate the probability of an event from a sample without actually carrying out repeated sampling or measuring the entire population.

A worked example

To demonstrate the CLT we want R to help us generate many samples from a particular distribution and calculate the same statistic on each sample. We could make a for loop, but the replicate() function provides a simpler framework.  We’ll sample from the chi-square distribution. You should extend this example to other distributions on your own, see Question 5 below.

Generate x replicate samples (eg, x = 10, 100, 1000, one million) of 30 each from chi-square distribution with one degree of freedom, test the distribution against null hypothesis (assume normal distributed, eg, Shapiro-Wilk test, see Chapter 13.3), then make a histogram (Chapter 4.2), like Figure 1 or Figure 2.

x.10 <- replicate(10, {
my.mean <- rchisq(30, 1)
mean(my.mean)
})

normalityTest(~x.10, test="shapiro.test")
hist(x.10, col="orange")

Result from R

Shapiro-Wilk normality test

data: x.10
W = 0.87016, p-value = 0.1004

Figure 1. means of ten replicate samples drawn at random from chi-square distribution, df = 1.

Modify the code to draw 100 samples, we get Fig 2.

Figure 2. means of 100 replicate samples drawn at random from chi-square distribution, df = 1. Results from Shapiro-Wilks test: W = 0.97426, p-value = 0.04721.

And finally, modify the code to draw one million samples, we get Figure 3.

Figure 3. means of one million replicate samples drawn at random from chi-square distribution, df = 1. Normality test will fail to run, sample size of 5000 limit.

How to apply sampling distribution to hypothesis testing

First, a reminder of some definitions.

Estimate = we will always (almost) concern ourselves with how good our sample mean (such values are called estimates) is relative to the population mean, the thing we really want, but can only hope to get an estimate of.

Accuracy = how close to the true value is our measure?

Precision = how repeatable is our measure?

How can we tell if we have a good estimate? We want an estimate with an evaluation for accuracy and for precision. The sampling error provides an assessment of precision, whereas the confidence interval provides a statement of accuracy. We need an estimate of the sampling error for the statistic,

Sample standard error of the mean

We introduced sample error of the mean in section 3.4 of Chapter 3. Everything we measure can have a corresponding statement about how accurate (sampling error) is our estimate! First, we begin by asking, “how accurate is the mean that we estimate from a sample of a population?” How do we answer this? We could prove it in the mathematical sense of proof (and people have and do) OR we can use the computer to help. We’ll try this approach in a minute.

What we will show relates to the standard error of the population mean (SEM) or

, whose equation is shown below.

or equivalently, from the standard deviation we have

Note that the SEM takes the variance and divides through by the sample size. In general, then, the larger the sample size, the smaller the “error” around the mean. As we work through the different statistical tests, t-tests, analysis of variance, and related, you will notice that the test statistic is calculated as a ratio between a difference or comparison divided by some form of an error measurement. This is to remind you that “everything is variable.”

A note on standard deviation (SD) and standard error of the mean (SEM): SD estimates the variability of a sample of X_i‘s whereas SEM estimates the variability of a sample of means.

Let’s return to our thought problem and see how to demonstrate a solution. First, what is the population? Second, can we get the true population mean?

One way, a direct (but impossible?) approach would be to measure it — get all of the individuals in a population and measure them, then calculate the population mean. Then, we could compare our original sample mean against the true mean and see how close it was. This can be accomplished in some limited cases. For example, the USA conducts a census of her population every ten years, a procedure which costs billions of dollars. We can then compare samples from the different states or counties to the USA mean. And these statistics are indeed available via the census.gov website. But even the census uses sampling — individuals are randomly selected to answer more questions and from this sample trends in the population are inferred.

So, sampling from populations is the way to go for most questions we will encounter. The procedures we will use to show how a sample mean relates to the population mean are general and may be used to show how any estimate of a variable (sample mean and sample standard deviation, etc.), relates to properties of a parameter. We’ll get to the other issues, but for now, think about sample size.

Sampling from populations is necessary and inevitable, and, to a certain extent, under your control. But how many individuals do we need? The quick answer is for me to direct your attention to the equation for the SEM. Can you see in that ratio the secret to obtaining more precise estimates? There are many ways to approach this question, but let’s use the tools from last time, those based on properties of a normal distribution.

If we can view the sampling as having come from a population at least approximately normally distributed for our variable, then we can now examine empirically the effect of different sample sizes on the estimate of the mean.

A hint: variability is important!

From one population we obtain two samples, A and B. Sample sizes are

Assume for now that we know the true mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ) for the population. Note. This is one of the points of why we use computer simulation so much to teach statistics — it allows us to specify what the truth is, then see how our statistical tools work or how our assumptions affect our statistically based conclusions.

Confidence intervals

Reliability is another word for precision. We define a confidence interval as a statistic to report the reliability of our estimated statistic. We introduced confidence interval in Chapter 3.4. At least in principle, confidence intervals can be calculated for all statistics (mean, variance, etc.,) and for all data types. Confidence intervals define a lower limit, L, and an upper limit, U, and that you are making a statement that you are “95% certain that the true value (parameter value) is between these two limits.

We previously reported how to calculate an approximate confidence intervals for proportions and for NNT; simply multiple standard error estimate by 2. Here we introduce an improved approximate calculation of the 95% confidence interval for the sample mean

where Z is something you would look up from the table of the normal distribution. For a 95% confidence interval, 100% – 95% = 5% and divide 5% by two: the lower limit corresponds to 2.5% and the upper limit corresponds to 2.5% on our normal distribution. We look up the table and we find that Z for 0.025 is 1.96 and that is the value we would plug into our equation above. For large sample sizes, you can get a pretty decent estimate of the confidence interval by replacing 1.96 with “2.”

Questions

1. What is the probability of having a sample mean greater than 50 (mean > 50) for a sample of n = 9 ?

We’ll use a slight modification of the Z-score equation we introduced in Chapter 6.6 — the modification here is that previously we referred to the distribution of Xi‘s and how likely a particular observation would be. Instead, we can use the Z score with the standard normal distribution (aka Z-distribution), approach to solving how likely an estimated sample mean is given the population parameters μ and σ. Recall the Z score

We have everything we need except the SEM, which we can calculate by dividing the standard deviation by squared root of sample size.

For

, σ = 12.0 (given above), and μ = 47, n = 9, plug in the values:

Therefore, after applying the equation for Z score, . This corresponds to how far away from the standard mean of zero.

Look up from the table of normal distribution. The answer is , which corresponds to that is EQUAL to or GREATER than 0.75, which is what we wanted. Translated, this implies that, given the level of variability in the sample, 22.66% of your sample means would be greater than 50! We write: .

Some care needs to be taken when reading these tables — make sure you understand how the direction (less than, greater than) away from the mean is tabulated.

2. Instead of greater, how would you get the probability less than 50?

Total area under the curve is 1 (100%), so subtract .

I recommend that you do these by hand first, then check your answers. You’ll need to be able to do this for exams.

Here’s how to use Rcmdr to do these kind of problems.

Rcmdr: Distributions → Continuous distributions → Normal distribution → Normal probabilities …

Figure 5. Screenshot Rcmdr menu to get normal probability.

Here’s the answer from Rcmdr

pnorm(c(50), mean=47, sd=12, lower.tail=TRUE)

[1] 0.5987063

3. Now, try a larger sample size. For , what is the probability of having a sample mean greater than 50 ()?

, μ = 47, σ = 12, n = 50 and

Therefore, after applying the equation for Z score, . Look up (Normal table, subtract answer from 1) and we get .

Or 3.84% of your sample means would be greater than 50! We write: .

Said another way: If you have a sample size of 50 () and you obtain a mean greater than 50 then there is only a 3.84% chance that the TRUE MEAN IS 47.

4. What happens if the variability is smaller? Chance σ from 12 to 6 then repeat questions 1 and 4.

5. Repeat the demonstration of Central Limit Theorem and Law of Large Numbers for discrete  distributions

1. binomial distribution. Replace rchisq() with rbinom(n, size, prob) in the replicate() function example. See Chapter 6.5
2. poisson distribution. Replace rchisq() with rpois(n, lambda) in the replicate() function example. See Chapter 6.5

Quiz Chapter 8.3

Sampling distribution and hypothesis testing

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 8 contents

• Introduction
• The null and alternative hypotheses
• The controversy over proper hypothesis testing
• Sampling distribution and hypothesis testing
• Tails of a test
• One sample t-test
• Confidence limits for the estimate of population mean
• References and suggested readings

7.6 – Confidence intervals

Quantifying uncertainty.

Although I’ve already presented the concept (eg, Chapter 3.4), and equations for confidence intervals of risk estimates (Chapter 7.4, Chapter 7.5), here, we expand on the idea of confidence intervals. Confidence intervals are a central part of meeting one of the main objectives of statistics, that is, estimation and communicating uncertainty with any reported estimate.

There are three components of statistical analysis

1. Estimation
2. Inference
3. Modeling

Inference refers to statistical hypothesis testing — we ask questions of observations — do men (Rice et al 1999) and women (Fisher et al 2012) differ for blood glucose levels following a bout of aerobic exercise? T-tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), chi-square, correlation, regression are types of statistical procedures used to do statistical inference. Modeling on the other hand refers to procedures used to relate cause and effect or for use in prediction of future values given new data. Many of the statistical procedures one uses for inference are also used to build statistical models (ANOVA, regression). Studies may intend to either test some hypothesis (inference) or to provide a predictive equation (modeling). But most studies that relate observations gathered from an experiment are obliged to also report statistics, and this is the realm of estimation. Estimates of the mean and standard deviation, for example, would be typical statistics one expects to find in a report. We call these descriptive statistics, and together with graphics, descriptive statistics are the chief way we describe our results.

Confidence intervals are crucial in statistics because they provide a range of values where the true population parameter is likely to fall, offering a more nuanced understanding of the estimate beyond just a single point value. Similarly, for statistical model model building, confidence intervals quantify the uncertainty inherent in data, providing a range of plausible values for model parameters rather than a single point estimate.

We will review how to calculate confidence intervals for proportions and for NNT. These intervals are available in epiR package and automatically returned in RcmdrPlugin.EBM.

Confidence interval for proportions

A proportion is the fraction of individuals in a population with some characteristic. The characteristic might be HIV positive for example. This would be called the population proportion and it would be a parameter of interest. In reality, we calculate a sample proportion and therefore estimate the population proportion with error. We can calculate the confidence interval (CI) of the proportion to communicate the precision of our estimate. For proportions, we use the binomial distribution — either a sample has the characteristic of interest or it does not — there are only two possibilities. There are a variety of ways to go here, and the simplest is to use a normal approximation. This will work well provided the sample size was reasonably large and the proportion is not close to zero or one, that is, we invoke the Central Limit Theorem here. Although the outcomes are binomial, the error is assumed to be normally distributed. The Wald confidence interval for p is

where is the proportion of individuals with the characteristic (also called successes), z is the percentile from the normal distribution that corresponds to 1 – 1/2α.  For 95% CI then α = 0.05 and z would be 1.965. (See standard normal table.) Of course, if making the normal approximation for the binomial is not appropriate, the CI is less than ideal. The binomial after all is a discrete distribution whereas the normal distribution is continuous, so errors will enter particularly for low sample numbers.

Other approaches may be used to get better estimates of CI for proportions, including Wilson score intervals and Jeffrey Intervals (Agresti and Coull 1998). See R package propCIs.

Because a statistic like the mean or a calculation of absolute or relative risk reduction are calculated from samples drawn from a population, the estimate comes with error. The error is basically this – if we calculate a statistic like number needed to treat (NNT) or its converse, the number needed to harm (NNH), we need to communicate to the reader how precise our estimate is. Estimation has to do with accuracy, error, and precision.

Confidence interval for ARR

The ARR is simply

where is the number of treated or exposed individuals for which the event occurred and  is the number of untreated or unexposed individuals which the event occurred.

Our data from example (Ch 7.5), were a = 612, b = 2192, c = 375, and d = 2543.

and the 95% confidence interval is then

approximately. The “2” is only approximate; you need to use Z = 1.965, the value at probability value = 0.9725 (which comes from the Normal Table).

Confidence interval for NNT

For a sample of 100 people drawn at random from a population (which may number in the millions), then repeat the NNT calculation for a different sample of 100 people, do we expect the first and second NNT estimates to be EXACTLY the same number? No, but we do expect them to be close and we can define what we mean by close as we expect each estimate to be within certain limits. While we expect the second calculation to be close to the first estimate, we would be surprised if it was EXACTLY the same. And so, which is the correct estimate, the first or the second? They both are, in the sense that they both estimate the parameter NNT (a property of a population). But we can do better than two estimates. Confidence Intervals (CI) allow us to assign a probability to how certain we are about the statistic and whether it is likely to be close to the true value. We will

For CI of NNT, we need sample size for control and treatment groups; like all confidence intervals, we need to calculate the standard error of the statistic, in this, case, the standard error (SE) for NNT.

SE = sqrt(risk placebo * (1 - risk placebo) / (# in placebo group) + risk treatment * (1 - risk treatment) / (# in treatment group))

where SE is the standard error for NNT

The CI is approximately then

* – the “2” is only approximate; you need to use Z = 1.965, the value at probability value = 0.9725 (by multiplying this, which comes from the Standard Normal Table).

Odds ratio Standard error and 95% confidence interval

Like any statistic we can calculate, an estimate of odds ratio should be accompanied by the confidence limit. The standard error may be calculated with the following formula

R code

seOdds <- sqrt(sum(1/612, 1/2192,1/375,1/2543))

where ln refers to the natural logarithm. An estimate for the 95% confidence interval is

where exp is the exponential function 

and ln is natural logarithm.

R code

 exp(log(1.89,base=exp(1)) - 1.96*seOdds)

Our example the lower limit was 1.64. For the upper limit

Our example the upper limit was 2.19.

R code

 exp(log(1.89,base=exp(1)) + 1.96*seOdds)

Thus, our estimate was 1.89 and the 95% confidence interval was

which does not include one. Therefore, we conclude statistically different.

log(x, base = exp(1))

P-values from confidence intervals

While we expect certain reporting criteria for published, it is not uncommon that one or more elements are missing. For example, while we show how to obtain confidence intervals, the p-values were not reported. We discuss statistical inference and p-values in detail in Chapter 8, but for now, a low p-value (typically < 0.05) indicates that the odds ratio (OR) is statistically significant, meaning the observed relationship between a factor and an outcome is unlikely to be due to random chance. An OR of the difference may not be reported, or, an inexact p-value is reported like “< 0.05,” but we “need” an exact p-value for our meta-analysis.  A little math, and these missing statistics can be calculated.

We can use the OR example. We need to take the logarithm of ratios like OR or NNT or RRR. From above, we have the confidence intervals.

We need

The OR estimate, , which was 1.89

lower and upper confidence intervals: 1.64 and 2.19, respectively.

the standard error, which can be calculated as

the test statistic,

and then the p-value,

we would then report that the OR was not statistically different, p = 0.4044).

Questions

1. Instead of 95% confidence interval, obtain the 99% confidence interval for odds ratio 1.89.

Quiz Chapter 7.6

Confidence intervals

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 7 contents

• Introduction
• Epidemiology definitions
• Epidemiology basics
• Conditional Probability and Evidence Based Medicine
• Epidemiology: Relative risk and absolute risk, explained
• Odds ratio
• Confidence intervals
• References and suggested readings

Mike’s Biostatistics Book

Mike’s Biostatistics Book is an eBook to support my Biostatistics course at Chaminade University (since 2009). The course had its origins at the University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo (2003 – 2005), and was inspired by a course of the same name taught by Don Price (now at UNLV).

The progression and structure of this ebook follows my presentation in the course — BI-311 Biostatistics — these are my extended lecture notes. The companion site, Mike’s Workbook for Biostatistics, provides homework and simple projects to learn-by-doing biostatistics.

The BI-311 course is typically offered in Fall semester; following the semester I update the text. Thus, every year I add or revise content based on student experiences, add or revise data sets and R code, and improve homework and independent project support. Fall 2025, I updated instructions on use of R in Jupyter Notebooks and the cloud, and added about 900(!) true/false or multiple choice questions with immediate feedback — correct or incorrect — to accompany each subchapter. Updates for broken links, typos, grammar, and addition of supporting references are ongoing. I have yet to complete a couple of sub-chapters in Chapter 19 and Chapter 20.

In September 2024, Mike’s Biostatistics Book was adopted by LibreTexts.org for inclusion in their open textbook applied statistics library.

Mike’s Biostatistics Book is a work in progress; some chapters are complete, others, not so much. With each semester I add to and rewrite content. The draft of this eBook adopted by LibreTexts in Fall 2024 is at the level of version 0.99; We may as well then refer to the 2024 release of the book as version 1+. There are significant differences between the text at LibreTexts and the eBook presented at letgen.org. As of 2026, the eBook is in version 2.99. Why not round to three? Let’s introduce our first statistics concept — precision. Because I’m not following a proscribed version control scheme eg, Git, there can be no claim that “2.99” is precise — that is, exact to the hundredths. 

The cover image is a manowar fractal (now called “leaves” in 3.0.4 GIMP) generated in Fractal Explorer, the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP).

Text to speech — Google US English — is provided by WordPress plugin Text To Speech TTS Accessibility by AtlasAiDev, free version.

Fall 2026

/MD