Literature DB >> 24068250

Discussion: An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature.

Steven N Goodman1.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2013        PMID： 24068250     DOI： 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biostatistics        ISSN： 1465-4644            Impact factor:   5.899


× No keyword cloud information.
  4 in total

1.  Limitations of empirical calibration of p-values using observational data.

Authors:  Susan Gruber; Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  A surge of p-values between 0.041 and 0.049 in recent decades (but negative results are increasing rapidly too).

Authors:  Joost Cf de Winter; Dimitra Dodou
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  Distributions of p-values smaller than .05 in psychology: what is going on?

Authors:  Chris H J Hartgerink; Robbie C M van Aert; Michèle B Nuijten; Jelte M Wicherts; Marcel A L M van Assen
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 2.984

4.  Is the replication crisis a base-rate fallacy?

Authors:  Bengt Autzen
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2022-02-27
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.