Search results for: Weisi%20Guo

Authors: Weisi Guo

Abstract:

It is well established that there may be running correlations in sequential exam marks due to students sitting in the order of course registration patterns. As such, a random and non-sequential sampling of exam marks is a standard recommended practice. Here, the paper examines a large number of exam data stretching several years across different modules to see the degree to which it is true. Using the real mark distribution as a generative process, it was found that random simulated data had no more sequential randomness than the real data. That is to say, the running correlations that one often observes are statistically identical to chance. Digging deeper, it was found that some high running correlations have students that indeed share a common course history and make similar mistakes. However, at the statistical scale of a module question, the combined effect is statistically similar to the random shuffling of papers. As such, there may not be the need to take random samples for marks, but it still remains good practice to mark papers in a random sequence to reduce the repetitive marking bias and errors.

Keywords: data analysis, empirical study, exams, marking

Procedia PDF Downloads 136

Authors: James Jin, Weisi Xia, Runzhe Gao, Alain Vandal, Darren Svirkis, Andrew Hill

Abstract:

Background: Post-haemorrhoidectomy pain is concerned by patients/clinicians. Minimizing the postoperation pain is highly interested clinically. Combinations of topical cream targeting three hypothesised post-haemorrhoidectomy pain mechanisms were developed and their effectiveness were evaluated. Specifically, a multi-centred double-blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted in adults undergoing excisional haemorrhoidectomy. The primary analysis was conveyed on the data collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the combinations of topical cream targeting three hypothesized pain mechanisms after the operations. Methods: 192 patients were randomly allocated to 4 arms (each arm has 48 patients), and each arm was provided with pain cream 10% metronidazole (M), M and 2% diltiazem (MD), M with 4% lidocaine (ML), or MDL, respectively. Patients were instructed to apply topical treatments three times a day for 7 days, and record outcomes for 14 days after the operations. The primary outcome was VAS pain on day 4. Covariates and models were selected in the blind review stage. Multiple imputations were applied for the missingness. LMER, GLMER models together with natural splines were applied. Sandwich estimators and Wald statistics were used. P-values < 0.05 were considered as significant. Conclusions: The addition of topical lidocaine or diltiazem to metronidazole does not add any benefit. ML had significantly better pain and recovery scores than combination MDL. Multimodal topical analgesia with ML after haemorrhoidectomy could be considered for further evaluation. Further trials considering only 3 arms (M, ML, MD) might be worth exploring.

Keywords: RCT, primary analysis, multiple imputation, pain scores, haemorrhoidectomy, analgesia, lmer

Procedia PDF Downloads 70