Possible irrationality in biomedical research: small-N human studies get derided as “too small, preliminary” even if the effect is clear and consistent enough to have a low p-value; animal studies often use tiny numbers of animals or don’t even list the number.
-
-
I don’t know enough about life inside a top pharma company to actually claim anybody thinks this way, of course. It’s a product of a cynical imagination.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A good screening criteria for preliminary studies should have desirable operating characteristics. When operating characteristics are good, there is value to be gained in relaxing false positive error control. Otherwise back to searching for needles in a haystack.
-
Usually the ridicule for small-n studies is based on the fact that they aren't sufficiently powered to detect a real effect. The "That which does not kill my statistical significance only makes it stronger" fallacy. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2017/02/06/not-kill-statistical-significance-makes-stronger-fallacy/ …
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.