Nice overview of the perils of the p-value: http://t.co/vTPF7XxFaz
Cool paper in @RSocPublishing by @david_colquhoun about #FDR and #pvalues: http://t.co/HMO1eoa48D
"If you use p=0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30% of the time": http://t.co/SuqoF68MHI
Yet another article urging us to rethink our "positive" results, and plenty of reasons to be a sceptic. http://t.co/RwiXQjedwq
Cool paper in @RSocPublishing by @david_colquhoun about #FDR and #pvalues: http://t.co/HMO1eoa48D
Cool paper in @RSocPublishing by @david_colquhoun about #FDR and #pvalues: http://t.co/HMO1eoa48D
Yet another article urging us to rethink our "positive" results, and plenty of reasons to be a sceptic. http://t.co/RwiXQjedwq
Cool paper in @RSocPublishing by @david_colquhoun about #FDR and #pvalues: http://t.co/HMO1eoa48D
Yet another article urging us to rethink our "positive" results, and plenty of reasons to be a sceptic. http://t.co/RwiXQjedwq
Still glorifying your p=0.047? Go read @david_colquhoun's thoru dissection of those treacherous p-values http://t.co/hOSIvOOGtO …
Still glorifying your p=0.047? Go read @david_colquhoun's thoru dissection of those treacherous p-values http://t.co/hOSIvOOGtO …
Still glorifying your p=0.047? Go read @david_colquhoun's thoru dissection of those treacherous p-values http://t.co/hOSIvOOGtO …
Still glorifying your p=0.047? Go read @david_colquhoun's thoru dissection of those treacherous p-values http://t.co/hOSIvOOGtO …
Typo at top of p7 of pdf "rather than in 90% of"" should be "10% of" in http://t.co/rYkSgSUQXm
Bugger. Someone has already found a typo in http://t.co/ytbygLI5dv
"If you use p=0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30% of the time": http://t.co/SuqoF68MHI
RT @kevin2kane: Define ‘stat. significant’ as p<0.05: you have a 29% chance of making a fool of yourself. http://t.co/WtL2zfFcPL @dbrhoads
Define ‘statistically significant’ as p<0.05: you have a 29% chance of making a fool of yourself. http://t.co/se2zEDT46l @david_colquhoun
Define ‘statistically significant’ as p<0.05: you have a 29% chance of making a fool of yourself. http://t.co/se2zEDT46l @david_colquhoun
Still glorifying your p=0.047? Go read @david_colquhoun's thoru dissection of those treacherous p-values http://t.co/hOSIvOOGtO …
An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values open access http://t.co/o9mUnHyIid
Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. 5 months after going public on arXiv http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid
False Discovery Rate ... RT @david_colquhoun Typo at top of p7 of pdf "rather than in 90% of"" should be "10% of" in http://t.co/obXvclYbCZ
Paper on misinterpreting p-values by @david_colquhoun http://t.co/NUleRfVVnD But I don't think p<.001 is a solution: http://t.co/sfF48LWd3Y
Define ‘statistically significant’ as p<0.05: you have a 29% chance of making a fool of yourself. http://t.co/se2zEDT46l @david_colquhoun
Typo at top of p7 of pdf "rather than in 90% of"" should be "10% of" in http://t.co/rYkSgSUQXm
Typo at top of p7 of pdf "rather than in 90% of"" should be "10% of" in http://t.co/rYkSgSUQXm
Bugger. Someone has already found a typo in http://t.co/ytbygLI5dv
Bugger. Someone has already found a typo in http://t.co/ytbygLI5dv
@jonmbutterworth More on P values http://t.co/ytbygLI5dv
Excellent piece, imo MT@david_colquhoun: http://t.co/Jzo45NbmTZ
MT via @xtaldave: Great open access paper on sig tests by @david_colquhoun http://t.co/iSrMYma0TA
Still glorifying your p=0.047? Go read @david_colquhoun's thoru dissection of those treacherous p-values http://t.co/hOSIvOOGtO …
MT via @xtaldave: Great open access paper on sig tests by @david_colquhoun http://t.co/iSrMYma0TA
Still glorifying your p=0.047? Go read @david_colquhoun's thoru dissection of those treacherous p-values http://t.co/hOSIvOOGtO …
MT via @xtaldave: Great open access paper on sig tests by @david_colquhoun http://t.co/iSrMYma0TA
"If you use p=0.05 to suggest you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30% of the time" @david_colquhoun http://t.co/1DvlZo5ld4
why p<0.05 is not significant, or why we make a fool of ourselves 30% of the time. http://t.co/ZEXkWqFssb
why p<0.05 is not significant, or why we make a fool of ourselves 30% of the time. http://t.co/ZEXkWqFssb
'If you use p=0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30% of the time’ http://t.co/rAorWlm0wJ
essential reading for all scientists “@david_colquhoun: Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. arXiv http://t.co/y6uxlHG3hi”
MT via @xtaldave: Great open access paper on sig tests by @david_colquhoun http://t.co/iSrMYma0TA
"If you use p=0.05 to suggest you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30% of the time" @david_colquhoun http://t.co/1DvlZo5ld4
'If you use p=0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30% of the time’ http://t.co/rAorWlm0wJ
An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values http://t.co/1svnt3FQVq
'If you use p=0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30% of the time’ http://t.co/rAorWlm0wJ
Like famous '1/2 of biomed studies are wrong' paper? You'll love this: using p=0.05 --> false conclusion 30% of time: http://t.co/It1Z3NOtaA
Paper on misinterpreting p-values by @david_colquhoun http://t.co/NUleRfVVnD But I don't think p<.001 is a solution: http://t.co/sfF48LWd3Y
@drg1985 @royalsociety Yes http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid (hrough it's been around for a while)
Paper on misinterpreting p-values by @david_colquhoun http://t.co/NUleRfVVnD But I don't think p<.001 is a solution: http://t.co/sfF48LWd3Y
MT via @xtaldave: Great open access paper on sig tests by @david_colquhoun http://t.co/iSrMYma0TA
"If you use p=0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30% of the time": http://t.co/SuqoF68MHI
MT via @xtaldave: Great open access paper on sig tests by @david_colquhoun http://t.co/iSrMYma0TA
MT via @xtaldave: Great open access paper on sig tests by @david_colquhoun http://t.co/iSrMYma0TA
MT via @xtaldave: Great open access paper on sig tests by @david_colquhoun http://t.co/iSrMYma0TA
Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. 5 months after going public on arXiv http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid
essential reading for all scientists “@david_colquhoun: Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. arXiv http://t.co/y6uxlHG3hi”
Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. 5 months after going public on arXiv http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid
Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. 5 months after going public on arXiv http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid
Like famous '1/2 of biomed studies are wrong' paper? You'll love this: using p=0.05 --> false conclusion 30% of time: http://t.co/It1Z3NOtaA
"use p=0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30% of the time" @david_colquhoun http://t.co/JKqszsjua2
Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. 5 months after going public on arXiv http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid
Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. 5 months after going public on arXiv http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid
Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. 5 months after going public on arXiv http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid
.@david_colquhoun: Interpretation of P values - how to try not to make a fool of yourself! http://t.co/PBFgvXQJNn
Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. 5 months after going public on arXiv http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid
Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. 5 months after going public on arXiv http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid
Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. 5 months after going public on arXiv http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid
Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. 5 months after going public on arXiv http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid
Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. 5 months after going public on arXiv http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid
Interpretation of P values is now in a real journal. 5 months after going public on arXiv http://t.co/Kkg0nipAid
@stephensenn well I think it is, What matters is false discovery rate, not P values http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0
2/2 Robert Matthews Sunday Telegraph 1998 http://t.co/ksknpXDf82
2/2 Robert Matthews Sunday Telegraph 1998 http://t.co/ksknpXDf82
http://t.co/Qxiu3raUGr is good. More detail in http://t.co/relFUWcK7f
@mydocstudents Highly recommended! An investigation of the false discovery rate & the misinterpretation of p-values. http://t.co/1cMXKpfAsG
@sTeamTraen they should read http://t.co/ksknpXDf82
@mydocstudents Highly recommended! An investigation of the false discovery rate & the misinterpretation of p-values. http://t.co/1cMXKpfAsG
Open Science has accepted my P value paper. Nice, but it's been on arXiv since July http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0 #publishingischanging
Open Science has accepted my P value paper. Nice, but it's been on arXiv since July http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0 #publishingischanging
Open Science has accepted my P value paper. Nice, but it's been on arXiv since July http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0 #publishingischanging
@mydocstudents Highly recommended! An investigation of the false discovery rate & the misinterpretation of p-values. http://t.co/1cMXKpfAsG
@mydocstudents Highly recommended! An investigation of the false discovery rate & the misinterpretation of p-values. http://t.co/1cMXKpfAsG
@mydocstudents Highly recommended! An investigation of the false discovery rate & the misinterpretation of p-values. http://t.co/1cMXKpfAsG
@freakonometrics That piece uses "frequentist" as synonym for Fisherian H0 testing, I think FDR is frequentist too http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0
@AndrewSabisky @researchED1 @JPdeRuiter @stephanneuhaus1 I fear that your definition of P value is not quite right! http://t.co/ibNL4fYQ73
@AndrewSabisky @researchED1 @JPdeRuiter @stephanneuhaus1 I fear that your definition of P value is not quite right! http://t.co/ibNL4fYQ73
@AndrewSabisky @researchED1 @JPdeRuiter @stephanneuhaus1 I fear that your definition of P value is not quite right! http://t.co/ibNL4fYQ73
#InsideScience BBC Radio 4. I like arXiv apart from lack of open comments -post-publication peer review is the future http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0
#InsideScience BBC Radio 4. I like arXiv apart from lack of open comments -post-publication peer review is the future http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0
@lenovere @PLOSONE Join the club! Mine has been 3 months. Thanks to arXiv, it barely matters -publishing is changing! http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0
@JenniferRaff and I'm still looking for a free open access journal for http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0
@raphaels7 thanks. But my thinking on P values has changed a bit now http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0
.@stephensenn @Moriarty2112 My best guess is in http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0 and http://t.co/19wMbMay1P
More grist to http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0 RT @Moriarty2112: "If I had my way, I'd ban p-values altogether". http://t.co/yXylNEaWOV
.@gezblair @NHSNewsUK Good!Not randomised, tiny sample, pathetic P -at least 50% chance of being false discovery http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0
MT @david_colquhoun: Problem is that statisticians can't agree among themselves http://t.co/x5BsySkCYS and http://t.co/zJV4mmwbRn
@medskep @tom_siegfried Problem is that statisticians can't agree among themselves http://t.co/19wMbMay1P and http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0
@medskep @tom_siegfried Problem is that statisticians can't agree among themselves http://t.co/19wMbMay1P and http://t.co/YGxPXE0Vx0
.@gmcrotty @elife Thanks it will be out somewhere. It's already on arXiv -journals are increasingly irrelevant. http://t.co/2fDx6As7t8