Closed karafecho closed 4 months ago
@karafecho Good catch. What if I make corrections to add log calculation for log_odds_ratio_conf_interval_95? Will it resolve both (1) and (2)?
Your fix will work, although we'll be missing the confidence interval for fisher_exact_odds_ratio
.
Decision: update calculation for log_odds_ratio_95_confidence_interval for accuracy and to align with the calculations used in icees-kg.
Issue resolved, so closing ticket ...
I believe there is an existing ticket for this issue, which is to note that the
log_odds_ratio_95_confidence_level
that is being returned by ICEES is actually theodds_ratio_95_confidence_level
orfisher_exact_odds_ratio_95_confidence_level
. We need to (1) renamelog_odds_ratio_95_confidence_level
asodds_ratio_95_confidence_level
orfisher_exact_odds_ratio_95_confidence_level
and (2) add a new calculation forlog_odds_ratio_95_confidence_level
. (1) is a priority issue because I'd like to include a screenshot of the raw ICEES output in a paper I'm preparing (although I don't have to); (2) is not a priority issue because users can always calculate the confidence intervals themselves.