Statistics Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

	Medicine Template‑class
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The endoscopy example appears to be a real-world one. Please link to a source for it. If it is not real, it would be very useful to find a real-world example to use. I'd like to know the numerical levels for at least one real-world test; the article is completely theoretical otherwise, isn't it? editeur24 (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. I made several edits (diff), including some that are (hopefully) consistent with your recommendation. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 13:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. -editeur24 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added an endnote and two references to this template. I tried to determine how this works with templates, but I could not figure it out. If endnotes and reference lists cause problems in templates, please correct my error(s), and, if possible, retain the endnote and citations using an appropriate method for templates. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 13:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An anonymous editor changed the result for the prevalence threshold calculation from 19.1% to 26.8% (diff). I double-checked, calculating by hand, and I came up with a similar result, viz., 0.2686485335687089 ≈ 0.2686, but it seems the anonymous editor made a rounding error. If my maths are correct, it should be 26.9%. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I double-checked too. Your result seems correct.--Anton.t.gregersen (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, should the 'population' not be 'number of tested people' at the calculation of accuracy ?--Rcsmit (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EDIT: Never mind, in this case they are the same --Rcsmit (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]