Intressant om varför det inte räcker med p-värde på 5% https://t.co/vQwJLwIBVe
On p<0.005; Benjamin et al 2018 Redefine statistical significance https://t.co/e2NP95Kuht https://t.co/b5dfYyVl7N
@Jacob_Montg something like figure 2? https://t.co/pdhua4oUHi
#80 - the above commentaries cite a recent recrudescence of the debate, this time in the form of redefining statistical significance. I include them here for context https://t.co/BbmExYJk9l https://t.co/rgwqAl35kX
RT @stephensenn: Indeed! Failure to 'prove' a difference does not constitute proof of none. But 1) The FDA requires one-sided 'significanc…
RT @stephensenn: Indeed! Failure to 'prove' a difference does not constitute proof of none. But 1) The FDA requires one-sided 'significanc…
RT @stephensenn: Indeed! Failure to 'prove' a difference does not constitute proof of none. But 1) The FDA requires one-sided 'significanc…
RT @stephensenn: Indeed! Failure to 'prove' a difference does not constitute proof of none. But 1) The FDA requires one-sided 'significanc…
Indeed! Failure to 'prove' a difference does not constitute proof of none. But 1) The FDA requires one-sided 'significance' at the 2.5% level 2) Very recently many Bayesians were arguing for much more stringent standards than this https://t.co/uFh848cFWl
Using confidence intervals is a far more constructive suggestion than lowering the threshold for statistical significance (https://t.co/E9GoSo5Jlr; https://t.co/LFrjQDIOPC), but the battle will be long fought. Also considering that more stars are often con
@JamesSteeleII Are you going to learn anything more from these than: https://t.co/z0RoUIYIVR and https://t.co/qCB5Ce7k5Z and https://t.co/YMyvdZulQV?
@KevinDKohl @marius_s_klug Excerpt in no way implies that p<05 isn't too permissive when used. There's also this: "Associating stat sig findings with P < 0.05 results in a high rate of false positives even in the absence of other experimental, proc
@KevinDKohl @SteveStuWill So this argument is pretty hard to justify, unless you are also interpreting p values of around 0.03 or 0.04 as also being only 'marginally significant'... See https://t.co/DERk45d6m7
RT @phylogenomics: @ucdavis @ralphhexter At @ucdavis Ioannidis discussing this "Redefine statistical significance" https://t.co/3yBVnBPDoQ…
RT @phylogenomics: @ucdavis @ralphhexter At @ucdavis Ioannidis discussing this "Redefine statistical significance" https://t.co/3yBVnBPDoQ…
@ucdavis @ralphhexter At @ucdavis Ioannidis discussing this "Redefine statistical significance" https://t.co/3yBVnBPDoQ as a temporary but not ideal solution
@DrSarahEJackson This 72 author x-disciplinary paper proposed using p=0.005 threshold for new discoveries (aligns to substantial/strong evidence for hypothesis in Bayesian world) is pretty neat solution for non-Bayesians to judge when is/isn't an effect ht
@shravanvasishth @tmalsburg This is a good argument for redefining statistical significance and shifting the threshold to 0.005! Perhaps the best argument I heard so far. https://t.co/Xr5hv2iXEW
RT @Tokyo6Heart: #メモ. 統計的有意の基準をp<.05からp<.005にしようよと主張するnature系列の論文。p値とBayes factorの対応関係からその根拠が述べられている。https://t.co/PT8vwloqGK
@DavidAJaeger @KiraboJackson @SonjaKass Alternative take: this reminds us (uncomfortably) that p<.05 is weak evidence under reasonable priors https://t.co/GPabQHsgC3 and that findings that are narrowly significant are often non-robust to arbitrary model
@KiraboJackson Our former colleague Dan Benjamin has been pushing us to use .005 p values and makes a compelling case. The chance of false positives at .05 is shockingly high https://t.co/yB8CElopQ6
見つけた。 https://t.co/tTZbUR06cH
It would be total disaster if the REF, the Research councils or Departments in UK used likes to distribute funding, promotions, even as relative measure to define "4*" papers.
@FurlLab I agree that your second point can be an issue if altmetrics are to be used an an absolute measure. But I would argue that papers that go against the grain can attract just as much attention as the status quo papers, like this paper https://t.co/w
RT @RoyGoodacre: Yesterday in #Bratislava I learnt about Kempelen and his Mechanical Turk - an Automaton Chess Player - [Spoiler alert] it…
RT @RoyGoodacre: Yesterday in #Bratislava I learnt about Kempelen and his Mechanical Turk - an Automaton Chess Player - [Spoiler alert] it…
Yesterday in #Bratislava I learnt about Kempelen and his Mechanical Turk - an Automaton Chess Player - [Spoiler alert] it was an illusion [gasp]. I also read "Redefine statistical significance" [link], and illusions in processing #BigData. #Coincidence? 🙄
Redefine statistical significance https://t.co/i15sGTGXux
@GestureSignLab
RT @michael_nielsen: I really dislike the proposal to change the significance threshold from 0.05 to 0.005. There's no principled differenc…
RT @michael_nielsen: I really dislike the proposal to change the significance threshold from 0.05 to 0.005. There's no principled differenc…
RT @michael_nielsen: I really dislike the proposal to change the significance threshold from 0.05 to 0.005. There's no principled differenc…
RT @michael_nielsen: I really dislike the proposal to change the significance threshold from 0.05 to 0.005. There's no principled differenc…
RT @michael_nielsen: I really dislike the proposal to change the significance threshold from 0.05 to 0.005. There's no principled differenc…
RT @michael_nielsen: I really dislike the proposal to change the significance threshold from 0.05 to 0.005. There's no principled differenc…
I really dislike the proposal to change the significance threshold from 0.05 to 0.005. There's no principled difference, it's just a number, & it's asking to (eventually) have similar problems. Better solutions are needed, based on a different experime
Ioannidis: The Proposal to Lower P Value Thresholds to .005 https://t.co/Hgw9BYoV1n What a nerdy debate about P values shows about science-and how to fix it. https://t.co/A5V5FV9mKX Redefine statistical significance https://t.co/vWsy94d5Be #research #SciC
@fhollenbach @DinaPomeranz This paper tries to combine pvalues and a bayesian framework approach. They give a formula to "convert" pval into Bayes factors, a measure of evidence from the data in favor of your null / alternative hipothes https://t.co/cGNiLI
A simple solution proposed by @BrendanNyhan,@CFCamerer and many other heavyweights from various disciplines: https://t.co/L645KRCXJn
A new move in #Statistics - "Redefine statistical significance: We propose to change the default P-value threshold for statistical significance from 0.05 to 0.005 for claims of new discoveries." Article link: https://t.co/WqLoqNMVSB
Básicamente todas estas ideas son un poco "parches" hasta que la gente mejore sus conocimientos de estadística. Creo que todo (o parte) estará mejor explicado en este paper: https://t.co/CB1BkDN5sh
DJB: Recommendation 1: Use P<0.005 https://t.co/b74StK8LoF #reprozurich
You know you’ve spent too much time on #AcademicTwitter when your default interpretation of the word “journey” is as an abbreviation of “journal.” 🤦♀️
RT @chrisdc77: For those wondering, RSS stands for Redefine Statistical Significance where we proposed reducing the threshold for declaring…
For those wondering, RSS stands for Redefine Statistical Significance where we proposed reducing the threshold for declaring statistical significance from .05 to .005 The new Cortex policy, which applies to @RegReports only, is a 1st step on that journey
@DizzyXDee 1) Oversight... legitimately screwed the pooch and forgot to include it 2) Yes, we redefined statistical significance to .005... pretty controversial, but some support it https://t.co/wOS9fHNEgQ
RT @Tokyo6Heart: #メモ. 統計的有意の基準をp<.05からp<.005にしようよと主張するnature系列の論文。p値とBayes factorの対応関係からその根拠が述べられている。https://t.co/PT8vwloqGK
RT @GreggRMurray: I'm undecided but leaning more and more this way... "Redefine statistical significance: We propose to change the default P-…
I'm undecided but leaning more and more this way... "Redefine statistical significance: We propose to change the default P-value threshold for statistical significance from 0.05 to 0.005 for claims of new discoveries" https://t.co/AcGyv8B4sV @MatlandRichard h
Less focus on p-values, more focus on effect sizes https://t.co/1hSBJF4JDJ
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
Thinking about this: https://t.co/N6wtq4bL9G
"Redefine statistical significance" Benjamin, Berger and Johnson[2017] https://t.co/4zCXZPCQrT
RT @Tokyo6Heart: #メモ. 統計的有意の基準をp<.05からp<.005にしようよと主張するnature系列の論文。p値とBayes factorの対応関係からその根拠が述べられている。https://t.co/PT8vwloqGK
RT @Tokyo6Heart: #メモ. 統計的有意の基準をp<.05からp<.005にしようよと主張するnature系列の論文。p値とBayes factorの対応関係からその根拠が述べられている。https://t.co/PT8vwloqGK
RT @Tokyo6Heart: #メモ. 統計的有意の基準をp<.05からp<.005にしようよと主張するnature系列の論文。p値とBayes factorの対応関係からその根拠が述べられている。https://t.co/PT8vwloqGK
RT @Tokyo6Heart: #メモ. 統計的有意の基準をp<.05からp<.005にしようよと主張するnature系列の論文。p値とBayes factorの対応関係からその根拠が述べられている。https://t.co/PT8vwloqGK
#メモ. 統計的有意の基準をp<.05からp<.005にしようよと主張するnature系列の論文。p値とBayes factorの対応関係からその根拠が述べられている。https://t.co/PT8vwloqGK
RT @yumaloop: Nature「おい、実証科学!有意水準5%→0.5%に下げてみいや!」 https://t.co/DWYiPF5CSx
@hardsci Bayesian is where it's at. Or this https://t.co/xZ7fbLXOEF
Closely reelated - why we argued for more stringent p-value thresholds: https://t.co/GPabQHJRtB. (PS I am aware p-values are terrible and that this change is not a panacea. But default significance thresholds remain standard practice; we should at least us
RT @GESIS_Panel: According to the researchers of this recommended study, statistical standards of evidence for claiming new discoveries in…
RT @GESIS_Panel: According to the researchers of this recommended study, statistical standards of evidence for claiming new discoveries in…
According to the researchers of this recommended study, statistical standards of evidence for claiming new discoveries in many fields of science are too low. More at https://t.co/WuCkjie1CY What do you think? https://t.co/4Z3Mo3ChT4
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @DeepSingularity: Redefining the Statistical Significance of p-value. #BigData #DataScience #Statistics HT @gp_pulipaka https://t.co/14…
RT @DeepSingularity: Redefining the Statistical Significance of p-value. #BigData #DataScience #Statistics HT @gp_pulipaka https://t.co/14…
Just finished reading this Nature paper suggesting p<.005 as new threshold of significance, which means remarkably increased sample sizes, more funding problems, and even longer term for PhD training. This is nothing but a robbery... https://t.co/9zb5P1
在读这个要把p值显著性降到.005的名作。我就斗胆一问,多出来的样本量你们这72个作者能帮忙买下单么?延毕phd的生活费你们能付一下么?😡 https://t.co/9zb5P1jGni
@EChavezNeph @nefrocmnlr También échale un ojo a estos papers 1 👉🏼 https://t.co/v5xHELVWo2 , 2 👉🏼 https://t.co/932BAkIvER y 3 👉🏼 https://t.co/5Xzx3MqVEc
RT @matarazzomd: Never-ending controversy on significance of "statistical significance". To P or not to P? https://t.co/piZtOPedpH https://…
RT @matarazzomd: Never-ending controversy on significance of "statistical significance". To P or not to P? https://t.co/piZtOPedpH https://…
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @matarazzomd: Never-ending controversy on significance of "statistical significance". To P or not to P? https://t.co/piZtOPedpH https://…
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
Never-ending controversy on significance of "statistical significance". To P or not to P? https://t.co/piZtOPedpH https://t.co/IBPxEqS5kU https://t.co/uYrQKg6z3S
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
@andrewmhersh That proposal has already been formalized in this paper 👉🏼 https://t.co/932BAkIvER CC @medevidenceblog @BellomoRinaldo
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @EARL_Med_Tw: このJAMAのviewpoint論文は以下のNature関連雑誌のCommentの解説です。 統計学的有意性の再定義(Nat Human Behav 2018;2:6-10) https://t.co/rUfqun7MYl
RT @Miguel__Prol: Ver también (Berger) https://t.co/xLLvieRSbI https://t.co/FZz1MNbt8M
Ver también (Berger) https://t.co/xLLvieRSbI https://t.co/FZz1MNbt8M