Literature DB >> 25204545

Common misconceptions about data analysis and statistics.

Harvey J Motulsky1.   

Abstract

Ideally, any experienced investigator with the right tools should be able to reproduce a finding published in a peer-reviewed biomedical science journal. In fact, however, the reproducibility of a large percentage of published findings has been questioned. Undoubtedly, there are many reasons for this, but one reason may be that investigators fool themselves due to a poor understanding of statistical concepts. In particular, investigators often make these mistakes: 1) P-hacking, which is when you reanalyze a data set in many different ways, or perhaps reanalyze with additional replicates, until you get the result you want; 2) overemphasis on P values rather than on the actual size of the observed effect; 3) overuse of statistical hypothesis testing, and being seduced by the word "significant"; and 4) over-reliance on standard errors, which are often misunderstood.
Copyright © 2014 Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC-BY-ND 4.0).

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25204545     DOI: 10.1124/jpet.114.219170

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther        ISSN: 0022-3565            Impact factor:   4.030


  9 in total

1.  HydroCoils reduce recurrence rates in recently ruptured medium-sized intracranial aneurysms: a subgroup analysis of the HELPS trial.

Authors:  W Brinjikji; P M White; H Nahser; J Wardlaw; R Sellar; H J Cloft; D F Kallmes
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  Raising the bar for reproducible science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development.

Authors:  Barbara Jane George; Jon R Sobus; Lara P Phelps; Brenda Rashleigh; Jane Ellen Simmons; Ronald N Hines
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 4.849

3.  Mixed outcomes for computational predictions.

Authors:  Chi Van Dang
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2017-01-19       Impact factor: 8.140

4.  Unearthing new genomic markers of drug response by improved measurement of discriminative power.

Authors:  Cuong C Dang; Antonio Peón; Pedro J Ballester
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 3.063

5.  Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.

Authors:  Eric M Prager; Karen E Chambers; Joshua L Plotkin; David L McArthur; Anita E Bandrowski; Nidhi Bansal; Maryann E Martone; Hadley C Bergstrom; Anton Bespalov; Chris Graf
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2018-12-02       Impact factor: 2.708

6.  Improving preclinical studies through replications.

Authors:  Natascha Ingrid Drude; Lorena Martinez Gamboa; Meggie Danziger; Ulrich Dirnagl; Ulf Toelch
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 8.140

7.  Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.

Authors:  Eric M Prager; Karen E Chambers; Joshua L Plotkin; David L McArthur; Anita E Bandrowski; Nidhi Bansal; Maryann E Martone; Hadley C Bergstrom; Anton Bespalov; Chris Graf
Journal:  Cancer Rep (Hoboken)       Date:  2018-12-02

8.  What's Right and Wrong in Preclinical Science: A Matter of Principled Investigation.

Authors:  Laura N Smith
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 3.558

9.  Detecting the subtle shape differences in hemodynamic responses at the group level.

Authors:  Gang Chen; Ziad S Saad; Nancy E Adleman; Ellen Leibenluft; Robert W Cox
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 4.677

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.