Explaining Confidence Intervals and The Critical Region 

going off of this, is the left side of the equation supposed to be t with a subscript of 97.5% or 2.5%? asking because I was curious that the notation changed

Since the t-distribution is symmetric, the percentiles have the same value, but have different signs. I usually think about the calculation in terms of the positive one, so that’s why I put the 97.5th percentile on the left too. Hope this helps clarify!

At 1:16 you label both the null and alternative hypothesis as H_0, then keep the alternative on the screen, still as H_0 :)

If you change "values" to "random bounds", the translation will be correct.

yes! thanks for the answer :D @@very-normal

we’re so back

Good luck on your defense!

Thanks! It’s a little surreal to see people want to binge my videos, but I’m glad you’re getting value from them! And yea! A frequentist-Bayesian video is in the works! It might be a while before it’s out, so keep your eyes peeled. Thanks again for your viewership!

Thanks! I’ll try to figure out a way to fit a one-sided CI section into a future video. For now, one place they come up often is when a pharma company is trying to demonstrate that some new drug has a high enough response rate in phase 2 trials. For example, 30% might be the minimum response rate that might be acceptable. The company only really cares if the response rate is greater than 30%, so they’ll probably opt for a one-sided CI here. It wont matter if there’s evidence that the response rate is lower than 30%, since it would be axed anyways.

@@very-normal Makes sense, cool example :)

Oops, sorry about that! Thanks for letting me know!

You got some good ears

That’s why meta analysis is a thing. But the way studies are conducted or reported can be very heterogeneous which makes meta analyzing more difficult.

RU-vid hates confidence intervals :(

Broke Bayesian for a bit

Ah yeah, that makes sense lol, I’ll try to remember this for future videos. I think your phrasing is clearer, thank you!

You’re right, this one fell through the cracks, that translation shouldn’t be phrased that way. I’ll add an addenda to clear that one up

Everyone makes mistakes, thank goodness he realized it.

Yeas but it is not really "absolutely incorrect", 95% of the confidence procedures will contain the true value, but that's a pre-data statement, and it is about the procedure, not the parameters. Interpreting any particular observed confidence interval is very hard, for those interested, read "The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals" for some considerations.

your viewership is all that’s needed 🫡