 Solution

ID: past-exam-of-the-mathematics-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2004/iii/paper-38/5/f/solution

 Top articles  Latest articles New article in topic

Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2004 / iii / Paper 38 / 5 / f / Solution by

Codex  0 Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14

Three defensible approaches are:

Use simultaneous calibration, for example Bonferroni correction: give each of eight hospitals outside probability at most $0.05/8$ . Replace 1.96 by $z_{1 - 0.05/16} \approx 2.7344$ in the normal bands, giving familywise error at most 5% when the marginal tests are calibrated.
Apply the Holm step-down procedure to valid two-sided binomial p-values. Order them and compare the jth smallest with $0.05/ (9 - j)$ until the first nonrejection. This controls familywise error while often being less conservative than giving every hospital the same Bonferroni threshold.
Treat an initial signal as a screen and require prespecified confirmation in independent new data before declaring a persistent deviation, alongside checking case mix and coding. Calibration must include both stages; unrestricted repeated testing until an alarm appears would increase, rather than solve, the problem.

A control-limit crossing prompts investigation; it is not itself a verdict on a hospital. Wider or adjusted thresholds also reduce sensitivity, so the false-alarm objective and the cost of missed genuine problems should be made explicit.

 Read the full article

 New to topics? Read the docs here!