Literature DB >> 29248599

How often should we expect to be wrong? Statistical power, P values, and the expected prevalence of false discoveries.

Michael J Marino1.   

Abstract

There is a clear perception in the literature that there is a crisis in reproducibility in the biomedical sciences. Many underlying factors contributing to the prevalence of irreproducible results have been highlighted with a focus on poor design and execution of experiments along with the misuse of statistics. While these factors certainly contribute to irreproducibility, relatively little attention outside of the specialized statistical literature has focused on the expected prevalence of false discoveries under idealized circumstances. In other words, when everything is done correctly, how often should we expect to be wrong? Using a simple simulation of an idealized experiment, it is possible to show the central role of sample size and the related quantity of statistical power in determining the false discovery rate, and in accurate estimation of effect size. According to our calculations, based on current practice many subfields of biomedical science may expect their discoveries to be false at least 25% of the time, and the only viable course to correct this is to require the reporting of statistical power and a minimum of 80% power (1 - β = 0.80) for all studies.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  False discovery rate; Reproducibility; Sample size; Statistical power; p value

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29248599     DOI: 10.1016/j.bcp.2017.12.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biochem Pharmacol        ISSN: 0006-2952            Impact factor:   5.858


  4 in total

1.  Remyelination promoting therapies in multiple sclerosis animal models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Carlijn R Hooijmans; Martin Hlavica; Florian A F Schuler; Nicolas Good; Andrin Good; Lisa Baumgartner; Gianluca Galeno; Marc P Schneider; Tarzis Jung; Rob de Vries; Benjamin V Ineichen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  Association of recurrent venous thromboembolism and circulating microRNAs.

Authors:  Xiao Wang; Kristina Sundquist; Peter J Svensson; Hamideh Rastkhani; Karolina Palmér; Ashfaque A Memon; Jan Sundquist; Bengt Zöller
Journal:  Clin Epigenetics       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 6.551

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis animal models: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and white paper.

Authors:  Benjamin V Ineichen; Pascal Sati; Tobias Granberg; Martina Absinta; Nathanael J Lee; Jennifer A Lefeuvre; Daniel S Reich
Journal:  Neuroimage Clin       Date:  2020-08-02       Impact factor: 4.881

4.  Effect size, sample size and power of forced swim test assays in mice: Guidelines for investigators to optimize reproducibility.

Authors:  Neil R Smalheiser; Elena E Graetz; Zhou Yu; Jing Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.