4 ms·
Sure, you can't design a study badly and make it up on volume. — but there's a point at which the sample is so small we really don't need to look much closer.
by syllogism 10y ago
Sure, you can't design a study badly and make it up on volume. — but there's a point at which the sample is so small we really don't need to look much closer.
For instance, I don't want to spend time figuring out whether an n<100 study is any good. It isn't.
- stenl 10y agoSurely the required sample size depends on the effect size. You won't need n>100 to learn that elephants are larger than ants. The problem is in experiment design and interpretation generally, not sample size specifically. That said, all of us who know how to read a scientific paper (and have institutional access to the journals) should take 5 mins and point out flaws when we see them.
- jdietrich 10y agoYou don't need a large sample to establish that beheading is fatal. Sample size is only one factor in statistical significance; often it's a fairly unimportant factor.
- aaron695 10y ago> For instance, I don't want to spend time figuring out whether an n<100 study is any good. It isn't. So an AIDs cure that cured 80 out of 90 men wouldn't be worth reporting on HN? Studies that have >10,000 people I'd think are close to non existent, these are hugely expensive and I think most are well known. I think it's a job for the scientific community to work out, I can't see moderators on HN doing it.
- syllogism 10y agoPersonally I wouldn't click on a link that was reporting on a potential AIDS cure that was tested on 80 or 90 people.
- davelnewton 10y agoI'd click on a link on a report that cured 80 of 90 AIDS patients. I think you've misunderstood the nature of preliminary clinical trials.