.png){kind=icon}
返回
Revised standards for statistical evidence
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.1073/pnas.1313476110.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
分享.png){kind=icon}
收藏
摘要
En 中文
Recent advances in Bayesian hypothesis testing have led to the development of uniformly most powerful Bayesian tests, which represent an objective, default class of Bayesian hypothesis tests that have the same rejection regions as classical significance tests. Based on the correspondence between these two classes of tests, it is possible to equate the size of classical hypothesis tests with evidence thresholds in Bayesian tests, and to equate P values with Bayes factors. An examination of these connections suggest that recent concerns over the lack of reproducibility of scientific studies can be attributed largely to the conduct of significance tests at unjustifiably high levels of significance. To correct this problem, evidence thresholds required for the declaration of a significant finding should be increased to 25-50:1, and to 100-200:1 for the declaration of a highly significant finding. In terms of classical hypothesis tests, these evidence standards mandate the conduct of tests at the 0.005 or 0.001 level of significance.
Keyword:
PUBLICATION BIAS
HYPOTHESIS
AI总结
对已上传原文的论文进行重点信息的提取，主要内容包括：简要概述、研究摘要、背景介绍、关键亮点、图文解析、展望与总结。
期刊
P
IF:
9.1
论文数:
10.8W
被引数:
73.5W
机构
暂无机构信息
引用论文
Evidence that publication bias contaminated studies relating social class and unethical behaviorOAAI
OAAI分享收藏The Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire: Confirmatory factor analysis and identification of patient subgroups慢性疼痛接受问卷: 验证性因素分析和患者亚组的识别.png)
Pain
PainIF0
PREAI
分享收藏
查看更多内容