To P or not to P: on the evidential nature of P-values and their place in scientific inference · HackerPapers discussions

To P or not to P: on the evidential nature of P-values and their place in scientific inference — mentioned by nonbel

Fri, 04 Nov 2016 13:45:34 GMT

Unless I am misunderstanding something, their figure 3 seems to be plotting effect size vs p-value... So all it would be showing is that they had more data from lung adenocarcinomas (ie sample size is larger for that cancer type). It isn't 100% clear to me if they shared the data used for that figure, but here are the frequencies each cancer type appeared in table S1: Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) Bladder 202 399 Cervix Colorectal cancer 168 559 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Esophageal Squamous 242 292 Gastric cancer Kidney 472 257 Larynx Liver 123 392 Lung Adeno Lung Squamous 678 175 Oral cavity…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

To P or not to P: on the evidential nature of P-values and their place in scientific inference — mentioned by nonbel

Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:33:45 GMT

>"I’ve come to think that the most fundamental problem with p-values is that no one can really say what they are." Not surprising. The correct interpretation of p-values was not discovered until ~2 years ago. If you search around the internet you will find out that, according to the discoverer, he couldn't find a stats journal to publish it. The number of people who know the correct definition must be vanishingly small. Thank god for arxiv, or I would have never understood p-values: http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0081 tldr: Calculating the p-value + sample size is a lossless compression algorithm.…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

To P or not to P: on the evidential nature of P-values and their place in scientific inference — mentioned by nonbel

Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:58:01 GMT

Check out this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0081 Your interpretation is fine up until we start using a cutoff and talking about significant or not significant results, whether the null hypothesis is true, etc. It is using significance levels that introduces the nonsense.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.