{"id":"W4210305383","doi":"10.3899/jrheum.211115","title":"Post Hoc Power Calculations: An Inappropriate Method for Interpreting the Findings of a Research Study","year":2022,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"The Journal of Rheumatology","topic":"Meta-analysis and systematic reviews","field":"Decision Sciences","cited_by":120,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Sample size determination; Medicine; Confidence interval; Type I and type II errors; Post hoc; Statistical power; Odds ratio; Power analysis; Interpretation (philosophy); Power (physics); Statistics; Sample (material); Hazard ratio; Post-hoc analysis; Ideal (ethics); Computer science; Mathematics; Internal medicine; Epistemology","routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":true,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":true},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":["metaresearch"],"consensus_categories":["metaresearch"],"category_scores_codex":[0.5794971,0.003859361,0.006655696,0.008804332,0.003032776,0.01064438,0.006391942,0.006790295,0.01102875],"category_scores_gemma":[0.8408815,0.00310009,0.00647636,0.01097945,0.01291853,0.01112546,0.00666055,0.01917376,0.004424503],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.004340226,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01425958,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001231384,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.001214729,"domain_scores_codex":[0.2492783,0.6226315,0.07057105,0.01265386,0.043591,0.001274358],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.08166213,0.8082916,0.03304398,0.04707464,0.02911127,0.0008164489],"domain_codex":"methods","domain_gemma":"methods","domain_candidate":"methods","domain_consensus":"methods","study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_scores_codex":[0.003867559,0.0003361311,0.005732359,0.0489272,0.01081426,0.001330744,0.01302246,0.004234919,0.003320813,0.152869,0.1607499,0.5947946],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.003860271,0.002552143,0.007389276,0.04301554,0.005303925,0.001854784,0.003465559,0.02084782,0.01156007,0.5379647,0.3613063,0.0008797303],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"methods","genre_gemma":"methods","genre_scores_codex":[0.003555381,0.007657061,0.9129865,0.02623123,0.01732045,0.01900108,0.001427735,0.002202217,0.009618369],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.06307326,0.003641951,0.8413553,0.01734761,0.004397001,0.06481636,0.0003920813,0.002129431,0.002846987],"genre_candidate":"methods","genre_consensus":"methods","teacher_disagreement_score":0.4205029,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.518555,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.5943443314800874,"score_gpt":0.5890866698779713,"score_spread":0.005257661602116048,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}