Skip to content

Conversation

mattansb
Copy link
Member

@mattansb mattansb commented Nov 9, 2023

No description provided.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 9, 2023

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.22642% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 90.90%. Comparing base (8fdbfad) to head (2b8c634).
⚠️ Report is 60 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
R/vars_ratio.R 96.22% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #619      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.74%   90.90%   +0.16%     
==========================================
  Files          57       58       +1     
  Lines        3564     3617      +53     
==========================================
+ Hits         3234     3288      +54     
+ Misses        330      329       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@bwiernik
Copy link
Contributor

bwiernik commented Nov 9, 2023

Let's a few options here for CI methods and computing SD ratio instead, pulling them from the metafor::escalc() code.

(SD ratios are often called variation/variance ratios in biology and ecology work.)

Maybe let's call the function variation_ratio()?

@mattansb
Copy link
Member Author

mattansb commented Nov 9, 2023

For independents samples, metafor uses these (with the +1/(2 * (n1i - 1)) -1/(2 * (n2i - 1)) small sample bias correction):

yi <- log(sd1i/sd2i) + 1/(2 * (n1i - 1)) - 1/(2 * (n2i - 1))
vi <- 1/(2 * (n1i - 1)) + 1/(2 * (n2i - 1))

What should vi be here if the correction is not applied? 🤔

Maybe let's call the function variation_ratio()?

Sure.

@bwiernik
Copy link
Contributor

bwiernik commented Nov 9, 2023

vi is the same -- the adjustment is an additive constant so it doesn't affect the variance because of the calculus

@mattansb
Copy link
Member Author

mattansb commented Nov 9, 2023

Oh right, duh 🤦‍♂️

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants