RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
@MalleyGlass @SameiHuda @Keith_Laws @ProfRobHoward And since being an UG you might want to catch up on 2018 CONSORT-SPI Trials guidance, 2020 Lancet Psychiatry editorial on mental health outcomes, and the latest thinking about statistical significance http
@EricTopol @CochraneLibrary @cochranecollab .@JeremyFarrar When the history of this pandemic is written, scientific historians will be stunned to see life-saving drugs were dismissed because of a simple, though unfortunately common, error in the INTERPRET
@martajaraotero https://t.co/11Hf9B1Nv2 gente que sabe más que yo dice que...
@a_wiglesworth @amylibrarian In general, it is best to treat p values as continuous measures of compatibility of a specific value (usually 0) with the data and model assumptions; report exact p at least until .001. Some good readings there are https://t.co
RT @AndersPerner: @Janhendrik_neph @msovani @NickHartThorax @CRIC_Int_Care @GeorgeInstIN My understanding was improved, I hope, by this pap…
Worth a read
RT @AndersPerner: @Janhendrik_neph @msovani @NickHartThorax @CRIC_Int_Care @GeorgeInstIN My understanding was improved, I hope, by this pap…
RT @AndersPerner: @Janhendrik_neph @msovani @NickHartThorax @CRIC_Int_Care @GeorgeInstIN My understanding was improved, I hope, by this pap…
RT @AndersPerner: @Janhendrik_neph @msovani @NickHartThorax @CRIC_Int_Care @GeorgeInstIN My understanding was improved, I hope, by this pap…
RT @AndersPerner: @Janhendrik_neph @msovani @NickHartThorax @CRIC_Int_Care @GeorgeInstIN My understanding was improved, I hope, by this pap…
@Janhendrik_neph @msovani @NickHartThorax @CRIC_Int_Care @GeorgeInstIN My understanding was improved, I hope, by this paper among others https://t.co/be4HuXQM6K
RT @SaurabhGayali: Many scientists believe and are supporting abolishment of statistical significance. Is it necessary or not. Kindly share…
RT @SaurabhGayali: Many scientists believe and are supporting abolishment of statistical significance. Is it necessary or not. Kindly share…
RT @SaurabhGayali: Many scientists believe and are supporting abolishment of statistical significance. Is it necessary or not. Kindly share…
Many scientists believe and are supporting abolishment of statistical significance. Is it necessary or not. Kindly share your views. #academictwitter #AcademicChatter #biostatistics #bioinformatics https://t.co/fRinQCrll2
RT @niceonecombo: Thoroughly enjoyed reading this piece on how to use P values, and whether we should abandon binary statistical significan…
RT @niceonecombo: Thoroughly enjoyed reading this piece on how to use P values, and whether we should abandon binary statistical significan…
Thoroughly enjoyed reading this piece on how to use P values, and whether we should abandon binary statistical significance tests (spoiler: they think so). Thanks for the pointer, @tom_swing: https://t.co/uf7ry60qPY
Is P value slavery going to an end? 800 scientists gather their voices about P value use and misuse. Nature published a comment in which they discuss this (https://t.co/hMY06YMHA1), but the issue is quite old: 2001, It's Time to Rehabilitate the P-Value C…
@niceonecombo Guessing you’ve read this https://t.co/8g2oeW3HYx
RT @pardoguerra: @jenniesweetcush This is an important and useful statement—which I think helps focus our attention away from p values as s…
@jenniesweetcush You abandon the outdated practice of categorizing results as "significant" or "not significant" based on p-value thresholds https://t.co/Q7OjWbrU8U
RT @mmpaquette: I've been increasingly perturbed by the scientific discourse, recently dogmatism surrounding statistical interpretation. F…
@wickdchiq Also worth noting: Scientists rise up against statistical significance ~ https://t.co/vkTQdAt75Q c/o @Nature #Math #SciComm #CdnPoli #Statistics #CdnSci #Culture #Elxn44 #SenCA
@BreznauNate Maybe this one, Nate! (i hope nobody said it before!) https://t.co/2tPVOh1pLJ
@Nature article on the pitfalls of over-reliance on statistical significance as an indicator. Really relevant also for social sciences. https://t.co/co9WCiYPCK
@Scintigraphiste 4/ Last but not least, les résultats des deux méta-analyses, malgré toutes les manip dans la méta Roman visant à ne pas atteindre la significativité, sont identiques: RR=0.38 et RR=0.37, une avec plus de puissance statistique que l'autre.
An overdue call to retire statistical significance and to use confidence intervals as compatibility intervals! https://t.co/pMwYzeOZLA
@mathalveslim Essa aula é mesmo essencial. Outra essencial é essa aqui abaixo. Um erro bem comum é a falha lógica na interpretação da direção de evidencias. https://t.co/ET0pEz4HLj
というように,特定のp値での「有意」を絶対的に考えるのもどうなのか,という(たびたび繰り返される)話も https://t.co/T6OvcvLb1k に含まれるとの理解.
https://t.co/T6OvcvLb1k (この記事の声明でも(確かそれ以前にも)話題になったように、(ある基準で統計的有意に)「差があるとは言えない」と(統計的に)「差がない」は別です。これもご指摘ありがとうございます。m(_ _)m
(例えば https://t.co/t48qx2VTM2 は数年前にかなり話題になりました.)
Scientists rise up against statistical significance https://t.co/f0FT16okGB
有意差無しは差が無い・・・? https://t.co/PqIQzmwBHl
@drpablocorral Después de 1 año y medio entendí que la MBE usada al extremo no dió respuestas rápidas ni concluyentes, que si el virus hubiese tenido la mortalidad del ébola, no quedarían MDs, PHds que dijeran no porque el N es muy chico, algo tiene q camb
RT @mmpaquette: I've been increasingly perturbed by the scientific discourse, recently dogmatism surrounding statistical interpretation. F…
RT @mmpaquette: I've been increasingly perturbed by the scientific discourse, recently dogmatism surrounding statistical interpretation. F…
I've been increasingly perturbed by the scientific discourse, recently dogmatism surrounding statistical interpretation. From Nature: "How do statistics so often lead scientists to deny differences that those not educated in statistics can plainly see?"
RT @DanGraur: The p-value is indeed unimportant. The important thing is the magnitude of the effect. https://t.co/qO1nHlIslJ
The p-value is indeed unimportant. The important thing is the magnitude of the effect. https://t.co/qO1nHlIslJ
RT @TDataScience: Scientists rise up against statistical significance. https://t.co/w0EiwN67IV 🖊by @vamrhein @Lester_Domes Blake McShane @…
@StefanTigges Thanks. Here’s the key problem, from the Nature article I cited, https://t.co/8gSHOn8m6i https://t.co/nkHcjMjbqN
@boulware_dr When the history of this epidemic is written, a key focus of future historians will be how this already well-understood and well-described mistake in the *interpretation* of medical studies prevented life-saving treatments being used. https://
@StefanTigges You missed an extremely important case: when the p-value is > 0.05, far too commonly a difference observed in the data is claimed "not real". In actuality, it may simply be the sample size is not large enough: https://t.co/2J35ZxB6WH
@axleshafted @MarinaMedvin @ColumbiaBugle The "science" is a little bit faulty at the moment: https://t.co/36xNXIOkFo https://t.co/G1HUkxe1rB https://t.co/tTgPQcTwvH
@TheSGEM @RockyJedickMD @operationdanish @BretWeinstein OK, but I hope you accept that lack of statistical significance at p<0.05 level does not “prove” the null. This paper may be of interest. https://t.co/QAUWLz18OO
Yes (and they should also be spanked). You win with this!! Congrats! Send mailing address to me at error.
@learnfromerror Because SIST should be compulsory reading for anybody who signed this https://t.co/zY4R2klK6X
RT @_slug__life_: So frustrated at continued use of "statistical significance" in science two years after a bunch of statisticians said sto…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @_slug__life_: So frustrated at continued use of "statistical significance" in science two years after a bunch of statisticians said sto…
So frustrated at continued use of "statistical significance" in science two years after a bunch of statisticians said stop doing that. I've never seen a compelling counterargument, seems like people just default to doing what they've always done https://t.
@leandrotessler Esqueci de postar no comentário anterior que Greeland e cia ltda também publicaram esse comentário aqui em 2019 https://t.co/iexkmRGN6P
RT @Buddhijeevi2: @NileshSKapoor @Thinkerks Indian doctors who have actually treated covid outpatients are smart enough & know that early r…
@Sonal_MK @MoHFW_INDIA Indian doctors who have actually treated covid outpatients are smart enough & know that early rx works, unlike dghs bureaucrats who rarely see any patients and keep on making policies by just playing binary games with p-values an
@NileshSKapoor @Thinkerks Indian doctors who have actually treated covid outpatients are smart enough & know that early rx works, unlike dghs bureaucrats who rarely see any patients and keep on making policies by just playing binary games with p-values
As pointed out in this article, the statistical community generally supports this idea.....
RT @AngelaReiersen: I think this article is very important: Scientists rise up against statistical significance https://t.co/QAUWLz18OO
Scientists rise up against statistical significance https://t.co/XHoMPvBc0X
Estão fazendo isso com a IVM e HCQ !
From the people I see arguing on Twitter, seems like large portions of scientists and physicians don't know these basic logical concepts. 👇🏻
Well, in here we love and need to be married with Statistics #EverlastingLove
RT @AngelaReiersen: I think this article is very important: Scientists rise up against statistical significance https://t.co/QAUWLz18OO
Many medical professionals are not adept at statistics. There should be a statistician or mathematician statement on all papers. Alpha and Beta error, statistical significance, null hypothesis definition and many very fundamental concepts are routinely wro
RT @AngelaReiersen: I think this article is very important: Scientists rise up against statistical significance https://t.co/QAUWLz18OO
RT @AngelaReiersen: I think this article is very important: Scientists rise up against statistical significance https://t.co/QAUWLz18OO
RT @AngelaReiersen: I think this article is very important: Scientists rise up against statistical significance https://t.co/QAUWLz18OO
RT @AngelaReiersen: I think this article is very important: Scientists rise up against statistical significance https://t.co/QAUWLz18OO
I think this article is very important: Scientists rise up against statistical significance https://t.co/QAUWLz18OO
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
Scientists rise up against statistical significance @Nature Link: https://t.co/FYIwL0E9pF
Scientists rise up against statistical significance https://t.co/ZyM9DbixUr
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
22 / Este artículo de Nature explica, entre otras cosas, la “falacia de la línea brillante” básica de confundir evidencia débil con eficacia con evidencia (fuerte) contra eficacia: https://t.co/dGvcXQlnQp
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…
Scientists rise up against statistical significance https://t.co/9GxSTF1dIv
RT @AbdenurFlavio: 22/ This Nature paper explains among other things the basic “bright-line fallacy” of mistaking weak evidence for effica…