Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns over reproducibility in research has reinvigorated the discourse on P-values as measures of statistical evidence. In a position statement by the American Statistical Association board of directors, they warn of P-value misuse and refer to the availability of alternatives. Despite the common practice of comparing P-values across different hypothesis tests in genetics, it is well-appreciated that P-values must be interpreted alongside the sample size and experimental design used for their computation. Here, we discuss the evidential statistical paradigm (EP), an alternative to Bayesian and Frequentist paradigms, that has been implemented in human genetics studies. Using applications in Cystic Fibrosis genetic association analyses, and describing recent theoretical developments, we review how to measure statistical evidence using the EP in the presence of covariates, model misspecification, and for composite hypotheses. Novel graphical displays are presented, and software for their computation is highlighted. The implications of multiple hypothesis testing for the EP are delineated in the analyses, demonstrating a view more consistent with scientific reasoning; the EP provides a theoretical justification for replication that is a requirement in genetic association studies. As genetic studies grow in size and complexity, a fresh look at measures of statistical evidence that are sensible amid the analysis of big data are required.
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 | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".