Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 531

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Influence of Statistical Method Used on the Resulting Estimate of Normal Range

Reed, Allen H, Henry, Richard J, Mason, William B·1971·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

The choice of statistical method can greatly influence the calculated normal range apart from any biological or chemical considerations. Nonparametric normal range estimates are, for practical purposes, as accurate as estimates that assume the distribution of data to be gaussian or loggaussian when the distribution assumed is true. When data are not distributed as assumed, nonparametric estimates are more accurate.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/clinchem/17.4.275

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 531

Metadata

Authors
Reed, A. H., Henry, R. J., & Mason, W. B.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
1971-04-01
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
275-284
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W1930145556
Cited by
531
References
0
FWCI
12.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Influence of Statistical Method Used on the Resulting Estimate of Normal Range. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/clinchem/17.4.275
The paper
Reed, A. H., Henry, R. J., & Mason, W. B. (1971). Influence of Statistical Method Used on the Resulting Estimate of Normal Range. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/17.4.275

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.