Addressing the Challenge of P-Value and Sample Size when the Significance is Borderline: The Test of Random Duplication of Participants as a New Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of borderline p-value seems to divide health scientists into two schools of thought. One school of thought argues that when the p-value is greater than or equal to the statistical significance cut-off level of 0.05, it should not be considered statistically significant and the null hypothesis should be accepted no matter how close the p-value is to the 0.05. The other school of thought believes that by doing so one might be committing a Type 2 error and possibly missing valuable information. In this paper, we discuss an approach to address this issue and suggest the test of random duplication of participants as a way to interpret study outcomes when the statistical significance is borderline. This discussion shows the irrefutability of the concept of borderline statistical significance, however, it is important that one demonstrates whether a borderline statistical significance is truly borderline or not. Since the absence of statistical significance is not necessarily evidence of absence of effect, one needs to double check if a borderline statistical significance is indeed borderline or not. The p-value should not be looked at as a rule of thumb for accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis but rather as a guide for further action or analysis that leads to correct conclusions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.693 | 0.893 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".