3 ms·
Under the null hypothesis, a difference this large is still extremely unlikely for a group this small. Sometimes, counterintuitively, you don’t need a huge grou
by 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
Under the null hypothesis, a difference this large is still extremely unlikely for a group this small. Sometimes, counterintuitively, you don’t need a huge group.
- Groxx 5y agoYeah, this is a fairly standard size for an early trial. Trials cost money. Even if this is a lucky outlier and it turns out to be no better than the placebo in a larger trial, having a decently strong positive result can hugely improve your chances of getting the money (and interest) needed to run a larger trial.
- InfiniteRand 5y agoBut it’s worth realizing this small of a trial size likely means there’s a long road to widespread use
- Groxx 5y agoSure, but at that point the complaint is in either the journalism being misleading (implying it's "coming soon" in a layman's use of "coming soon"), or our outsider view into internal messaging is misunderstanding the claims (if this was written for people familiar with the field, "there's a long way to go" is safe to assume as base knowledge, which outsiders may not have). tl;dr yeah, but everyone knows that / science journalism is terrible.
- carabiner 5y agoThe same could be said for a massive trial with a small effect.