µ±Ç°Î»Ö㺠Ê×Ò³ > ÍâÓïѧϰ >ÓйØin contrast with µÄ¾ä×Ó·­Òë ÇóÖú

ÓйØin contrast with µÄ¾ä×Ó·­Òë ÇóÖú

×÷Õß jupiter1943
À´Ô´: Сľ³æ 300 6 ¾Ù±¨Ìû×Ó
+¹Ø×¢

it is equally absurd to claim these results were in contrast with the earlier results showing an identical observed effect.



Retire statistical significance ÎÄÕÂÀïÃæµÄÒ»¾ä»°£¬Îҵķ­ÒëÊÇ£º

1¡¢Í¬Ñù»ÄÃýµÄÊÇÕâ´Î½á¹ûÓëÏÈǰÑо¿½á¹ûÏà±È£¬ÏÔʾÁËͬÑùµÄ¹Û²ìЧ¹û¡£
2¡¢Í¬Ñù»ÄÃýµÄÊÇÕâ´Î½á¹ûÓëÏÈǰÏÔʾͬÑùЧ¹ûµÄÑо¿½á¹ûÐγɶԱȡ£


ÕâÁ½¸ö£¬×Ô¼ºÄò»×¼£¬showing¼°ºóÃæµÄÄÚÈÝÊÇÐÞÊÎthe earlyresults »¹ÊÇthese results£¿


Õâ¾ä»°ÔÚÕâ¸ö¶ÎÂäÖУ¬°Ñ¶ÎÂäÌù³öÀ´£¬¹©Óï¾³²Î¿¼¡£
It is ludicrous to conclude that the statistically non-significant results showed¡°no association¡±, when the interval estimate included serious risk increases; it is equally absurd to claim these results were in contrast with the earlier results showing an identical observed effect. Yet these common practices show how reliance on thresholds of statistical significance can mislead us (see ¡®Be warefalse conclusions¡¯)¡£ ·µ»ØÐ¡Ä¾³æ²é¿´¸ü¶à

½ñÈÕÈÈÌû
  • ¾«»ªÆÀÂÛ
  • jupiter1943

    ÉÄÜÕâ¸öÎÊÌâ±È½Ï¼òµ¥£¬×Ô¼ºÍ»È»Ïëµ½Óþä×ӽṹ³É·Ö¼ìÑéµÄ·½·¨·ÖÎö

    it is equally absurd to claim these results were in contrast with the earlier results showing an identical observed effect.
    claimºóÃæ¸úµÄÊÇÒ»¸ö¾ä×Ó

    ÆäÖÐ these results×öÖ÷Óï

    were ÊÇνÓï

    ±öÓïÄØ£¿

    showingÈç¹ûÐÞÊÎthe earlier results £¬ÄÇô¾ÍûÓбöÓïÁË

    ËùÒÔÎÒÑ¡ÔñµÄ·­Òë½á¹ûÊÇ
    ¡°Í¬Ñù»ÄÃýµÄÊÇÕâ´Î½á¹ûÓëÏÈǰÑо¿½á¹ûÏà±È£¬ÏÔʾÁËͬÑùµÄ¹Û²ìЧ¹û¡£¡±£¬

  • youngen

    Ó¦¸ÃÊǵڶþ¸öÒâ˼£¬wereÊÇϵ¶¯´Ê

  • ppnn13y

    ×£¸£

  • M_phenni

    ... it is equally absurd to claim these results [were in contrast with the earlier results] showing an identical observed effect.

    ¡°Í¬Ñù»ÄÃýµÄÊÇ[, ¾¡¹Ü]Õâ´Î½á¹ûÓëÏÈǰÑо¿½á¹ûÏà±È[²î±ðÏÔÖø]£¬[µ«È´±»ÈÏΪ]ÏÔʾÁËͬÑùµÄ¹Û²ìЧ¹û¡£¡±

²ÂÄãϲ»¶
ÏÂÔØÐ¡Ä¾³æAPP
Óë700Íò¿ÆÑдïÈËËæÊ±½»Á÷
  • ¶þάÂë
  • IOS
  • °²×¿