| Title |
An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Royal Society Open Science, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1098/rsos.140216 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Colquhoun |
| Abstract |
If you use p=0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30% of the time. If, as is often the case, experiments are underpowered, you will be wrong most of the time. This conclusion is demonstrated from several points of view. First, tree diagrams which show the close analogy with the screening test problem. Similar conclusions are drawn by repeated simulations of t-tests. These mimic what is done in real life, which makes the results more persuasive. The simulation method is used also to evaluate the extent to which effect sizes are over-estimated, especially in underpowered experiments. A script is supplied to allow the reader to do simulations themselves, with numbers appropriate for their own work. It is concluded that if you wish to keep your false discovery rate below 5%, you need to use a three-sigma rule, or to insist on p≤0.001. And never use the word 'significant'. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,450 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 332 | 23% |
| United States | 237 | 16% |
| Australia | 57 | 4% |
| Canada | 55 | 4% |
| Germany | 23 | 2% |
| Spain | 21 | 1% |
| France | 20 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 17 | 1% |
| Ireland | 14 | <1% |
| Other | 156 | 11% |
| Unknown | 518 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 804 | 55% |
| Scientists | 476 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 99 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 67 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,097 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 66 | 3% |
| United States | 54 | 3% |
| Germany | 17 | <1% |
| Brazil | 10 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 7 | <1% |
| France | 5 | <1% |
| Australia | 5 | <1% |
| Italy | 4 | <1% |
| Spain | 4 | <1% |
| Other | 49 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1876 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 476 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 462 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 233 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 164 | 8% |
| Other | 133 | 6% |
| Other | 424 | 20% |
| Unknown | 205 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 514 | 25% |
| Psychology | 204 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 196 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 147 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 100 | 5% |
| Other | 626 | 30% |
| Unknown | 310 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1350. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2023.
All research outputs
#9,637
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Royal Society Open Science
#21
of 4,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39
of 274,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Royal Society Open Science
#1
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 51.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.