Literature DB >> 30811495

Replacing P-values with frequentist posterior probabilities of replication-When possible parameter values must have uniform marginal prior probabilities.

Huw Llewelyn1.   

Abstract

The prior probabilities of true outcomes for scientific replication have to be uniform by definition. This is because for replication, a study's observations are regarded as samples taken from the set of possible outcomes of an ideally large continuation of that study. (The sampling is not done directly from some source population.) Therefore, each possible outcome is based on the same ideally large number of observations so that all possible outcomes for that study have the same prior probability. The calculation methods were demonstrated on a spreadsheet with simulated data on the distribution of people with an imaginary genetic marker. Binomial distributions are used to illustrate the concepts to avoid the effects of potentially misleading assumptions. Uniform prior probabilities allow a frequentist posterior probability distribution of a study result's replication to be calculated conditional solely on the study's observations. However, they can be combined with prior data or Bayesian prior distributions. If the probability distributions are symmetrical then the frequentist posterior probability of a true result that is equal to or more extreme than a null hypothesis will be the same as the one-sided P-value. This is an idealistic probability of replication within a specified range based on an assumption of perfect study method reproducibility. It can be used to estimate a realistic probability of replication by taking into account the probability of non-reproducible methods or subjects. A probability of replication will be lower if the subsequent outcome is a narrower range corresponding to a specified statistical significance, this being a more severe test. The frequentist posterior probability of replication may be easier than the P-value for non-statisticians to understand and to interpret.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30811495      PMCID: PMC6392266          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212302

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  11 in total

1.  Killeen's probability of replication and predictive probabilities: how to compute, use, and interpret them.

Authors:  Bruno Lecoutre; Marie-Paule Lecoutre; Jacques Poitevineau
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2010-06

2.  An alternative to null-hypothesis significance tests.

Authors:  Peter R Killeen
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2005-05

3.  A comment on replication, p-values and evidence.

Authors:  S N Goodman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  The scope and conventions of evidence-based medicine need to be widened to deal with "too much medicine".

Authors:  Huw Llewelyn
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 2.431

5.  Living with p values: resurrecting a Bayesian perspective on frequentist statistics.

Authors:  Sander Greenland; Charles Poole
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.822

6.  P values and statistical practice.

Authors:  Andrew Gelman
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility.

Authors:  Monya Baker
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 8.  An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values.

Authors:  David Colquhoun
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2014-11-19       Impact factor: 2.963

9.  PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.

Authors: 
Journal:  Science       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Why most published research findings are false.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2005-08-30       Impact factor: 11.613

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.