5 ms·

> 432 Hz tuned music was associated with a slight decrease of mean (systolic and diastolic) blood pressure values (although not significant), "Not significant"

> 432 Hz tuned music was associated with a slight decrease of mean (systolic and diastolic) blood pressure values (although not significant), "Not significant" means that "a slight decrease" is not supported by the data in the conventionally accepted way. By convention, authors should not make claims either way if the effect is not statistically significant, even if they believe the effect is real. So the sentence above is declaring that the authors aren't following the norms of scientific claims.

MichaelBurge 5y ago
> The study results suggest repeating the experiment with a larger sample pool and introducing randomized controlled trials covering more clinical parameters. You're writing like you disagree, but in the sentence after that the actual "claim" says to do exactly what you suggest(get more data).
- robotresearcher 5y ago
  "Was associated with a slight decrease of mean" is a claim. The p=0.05 convention requires that you report that the mean was not found to be different from the comparison distribution.
  - robotresearcher 5y ago
    (Self reply) I’ve sort of changed my mind about this, from the discussion here. It’s not wrong. But I still would not write it this way myself.
jansenderr 5y ago
really? I think you are being extremely unfavorable to the authors here. They are simply stating the results on blood pressure went down but in a non-significant way. There is nothing wrong with that and also they are not making claims either way they are just reporting the results of the study and literally describing what happened. Please enlighten with what claims they are allegedly making? that the blood pressure decreased in a non-significant way?
- robotresearcher 5y ago
  "Not significant" means that the probability is >=5% their result was obtained by chance. We've settled as a community on a convention that we don't claim an effect is real until it is supported by data ("statistically significant") ie. <5% likely to be explained by chance in your results. "Significant" does not mean big or important in this context. It means better than 5% unlikely to be (un)lucky data.
  - jjcon 5y ago
    They didn't claim it was real did they? Just read out the result which was lower but not in a significant way. I've read hundreds of papers do the same.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      > which was lower but not in a significant way But if "result [was] lower but not in a significant way" means "result was not proven to be lower", how does saying "lower but not really lower" make ever any sense? It seems to me that such nonsensical formulation ought not to be ever used by anyone.
      - jjcon 5y ago
        Because significance thresholds can vary pretty dramatically. Plenty of experiments done in physics for instance have reported results even though they didn't yet reach a 5 sigma threshold (3x10e-7). In physics something can be highly highly likely but still not 'significant' enough to warrant a discovery. They simply couch it as, hey this was the result and even though it isn't 'significant' the high likelihood may warrant additional research here. Reporting a binary significant/not significant is far less useful.
    - robotresearcher 5y ago
      "was lower but not in a significant way" By convention, this means "indistinguishable from", so reporting that it is lower is an unsupported claim. They would be equally justified in reporting that it was higher, ie. not at all.
thesz 5y ago
But they have significant decrease in heartbeat - about 5 beats per minute. For me, the difference between 57 and 62 beats per minute (with all other conditions being more or less equal) is a difference between me being healthy and having a light cold or enterovirus. E.g., it is a difference of "everything alright" and "some suspicious metabolic activity is there".
- robotresearcher 5y ago
  "Significant" does not mean "big" or "important" in this context. It means "not explained by chance more than 1 time out of 20 (p=0.05) if we repeated this experiment, given our data and the assumptions in our statistical model".
scotty79 5y ago
It's good to real statements like that in the following manner. Our experiment consisted of throwing a dice twice. Our data shows that on average result of second throw is lower than first one hower this result is not statistically significant.
- omegalulw 5y ago
  I am surprised that papers based on feelings if the authors get past per review in the first place.

MichaelBurge 5y ago

> The study results suggest repeating the experiment with a larger sample pool and introducing randomized controlled trials covering more clinical parameters. You're writing like you disagree, but in the sentence after that the actual "claim" says to do exactly what you suggest(get more data).

robotresearcher 5y ago
"Was associated with a slight decrease of mean" is a claim. The p=0.05 convention requires that you report that the mean was not found to be different from the comparison distribution.
- robotresearcher 5y ago
  (Self reply) I’ve sort of changed my mind about this, from the discussion here. It’s not wrong. But I still would not write it this way myself.

jansenderr 5y ago

really? I think you are being extremely unfavorable to the authors here. They are simply stating the results on blood pressure went down but in a non-significant way. There is nothing wrong with that and also they are not making claims either way they are just reporting the results of the study and literally describing what happened. Please enlighten with what claims they are allegedly making? that the blood pressure decreased in a non-significant way?

robotresearcher 5y ago
"Not significant" means that the probability is >=5% their result was obtained by chance. We've settled as a community on a convention that we don't claim an effect is real until it is supported by data ("statistically significant") ie. <5% likely to be explained by chance in your results. "Significant" does not mean big or important in this context. It means better than 5% unlikely to be (un)lucky data.
- jjcon 5y ago
  They didn't claim it was real did they? Just read out the result which was lower but not in a significant way. I've read hundreds of papers do the same.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    > which was lower but not in a significant way But if "result [was] lower but not in a significant way" means "result was not proven to be lower", how does saying "lower but not really lower" make ever any sense? It seems to me that such nonsensical formulation ought not to be ever used by anyone.
    - jjcon 5y ago
      Because significance thresholds can vary pretty dramatically. Plenty of experiments done in physics for instance have reported results even though they didn't yet reach a 5 sigma threshold (3x10e-7). In physics something can be highly highly likely but still not 'significant' enough to warrant a discovery. They simply couch it as, hey this was the result and even though it isn't 'significant' the high likelihood may warrant additional research here. Reporting a binary significant/not significant is far less useful.
  - robotresearcher 5y ago
    "was lower but not in a significant way" By convention, this means "indistinguishable from", so reporting that it is lower is an unsupported claim. They would be equally justified in reporting that it was higher, ie. not at all.

thesz 5y ago

But they have significant decrease in heartbeat - about 5 beats per minute. For me, the difference between 57 and 62 beats per minute (with all other conditions being more or less equal) is a difference between me being healthy and having a light cold or enterovirus. E.g., it is a difference of "everything alright" and "some suspicious metabolic activity is there".

robotresearcher 5y ago
"Significant" does not mean "big" or "important" in this context. It means "not explained by chance more than 1 time out of 20 (p=0.05) if we repeated this experiment, given our data and the assumptions in our statistical model".

scotty79 5y ago

It's good to real statements like that in the following manner. Our experiment consisted of throwing a dice twice. Our data shows that on average result of second throw is lower than first one hower this result is not statistically significant.

omegalulw 5y ago
I am surprised that papers based on feelings if the authors get past per review in the first place.