Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39845581›Full record

ArticleMonte Carlo methods and applications2024

Investigating the ecological fallacy through sampling distributions constructed from finite populations.

David J Torres, Damain Rouson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Monte Carlo methods and applications, 2024. 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

2 authors.

David J TorresDepartment of Mathematics and Physical Science, Northern New Mexico College, Española, NM 87532, USA.
Damain RousonComputer Languages and Systems Software Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA.

Funding

NM-INBRE Sequencing and Bioinformatics CoreP20GM103451 · NIGMS · NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY LAS CRUCES · PI Charlotte C. Gard · 2012 to 2026
$61.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103451
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Correlation coefficients and linear regression values computed from group averages can differ from correlation coefficients and linear regression values computed using individual scores. This observation known as the ecological fallacy often assumes that all the individual scores are available from a population. In many situations, one must use a sample from the larger population. In such cases, the computed correlation coefficient and linear regression values will depend on the sample that is chosen and the underlying sampling distribution. The sampling distribution of correlation coefficients and linear regression values for group averages will be identical to the sampling distribution for individuals for normally distributed variables for random samples drawn from infinitely large continuous distributions. However, data that is acquired in practice is often acquired when sampling without replacement from a finite population. Our objective is to demonstrate through Monte Carlo simulations that the sampling distributions for correlation and linear regression will also be similar for individuals and group averages when sampling without replacement from normally distributed variables. These simulations suggest that when a random sample from a population is selected, the correlation coefficients and linear regression values computed from individual scores will not be more accurate in estimating the entire population values compared to samples when group averages are used as long as the sample size is the same.

Indexed as

62H1062J0562P25Ecological fallacylinear regressionMonte Carlo simulationmultiple regressionPearson Rsampling distributions

Identifiers

PMID39845581
PMCPMC11748512

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.