3 ms·
This is actually very poor statistics. Take a look at the actual study: https://www.jhep-reports.eu/article/S2589-5559(22)00122-7/fulltext https://www.jhep-rep
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
This is actually very poor statistics.
Take a look at the actual study: https://www.jhep-reports.eu/article/S2589-5559(22)00122-7/fulltext https://www.jhep-reports.eu/article/S2589-5559(22)00122-7/fu...
And look at table 3.
They are testing 6 different types of PFAS, and only 1 is statistically significant.
They need to be using the Bonferroni Correction because they are checking multiple hypothesis. To do that, you divide the required p-value (0.05) by the number of tests (6). If you do the Bonferroni Correction, none of the PFAS is statistically significant.
Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/
Thus the real conclusion is that the study did not find any statistically significant link between 'forever chemicals' and liver cancer.
- dataangel 4y agoWhether they need a correction depends on how they calculated the p-value. If they only ask one question, "Is the total of these 6 chemicals correlated with liver cancer?" then they only did one test and don't need to correct. The fact that 6 chemicals go into the total doesn't mean they asked more questions, it just means there results only speak to the total amount of that whole class of chemicals in the blood rather than any one of them.
- 2020aj 4y agoEach of the 6 have unique p-values, they did 6 tests. The GP is correct.
- rendang 4y agoHow does a mistake so basic get past peer review?