Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1136/jim-2016-000206 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1136/jim-2016-000206 C5099183!5099183!27489256     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=27489256&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215 Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\27489256.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       J+Investig+Med 2016 ; 64 (7): 1166-71 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=27489256|t=2016. P values: from suggestion to superstition |pdf=|usr=}}{{27489256}} gab.com Text P values: from suggestion to superstition JO: J Investig Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27489256 #FOAvip A threshold probability value of ?p?0.05? is commonly used in clinical investigations to indicate statistical significance. To allow clinicians to better understand evidence generated by research studies, this review defines the p value, summarizes the historical origins of the p value approach to hypothesis testing, describes various applications of p?0.05 in the context of clinical research and discusses the emergence of p?5×10?8 and other values as thresholds for genomic statistical analyses. Corresponding issues include a conceptual approach of evaluating whether data do not conform to a null hypothesis (ie, no exposure?outcome association). Importantly, and in the historical context of when p?0.05 was first proposed, the 1-in-20 chance of a false-positive inference (ie, falsely concluding the existence of an exposure?outcome association) was offered only as a suggestion. In current usage, however, p?0.05 is often misunderstood as a rigid threshold, sometimes with a misguided ?win? (p?0.05) or ?lose? (p>0.05) approach. Also, in contemporary genomic studies, a threshold of p?10?8 has been endorsed as a boundary for statistical significance when analyzing numerous genetic comparisons for each participant. A value of p?0.05, or other thresholds, should not be employed reflexively to determine whether a clinical research investigation is trustworthy from a scientific perspective. Rather, and in parallel with conceptual issues of validity and generalizability, quantitative results should be interpreted using a combined assessment of strength of association, p values, CIs, and sample size. Twit Text FOAVip P values: from suggestion to superstition ????J Investig Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27489256 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27489256 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|27489256}}</ref> P values: from suggestion to superstition #MMPMID27489256 Concato J; Hartigan JA J Investig Med 2016[Oct]; 64 (7): 1166-71 PMID27489256show ga A threshold probability value of ?p?0.05? is commonly used in clinical investigations to indicate statistical significance. To allow clinicians to better understand evidence generated by research studies, this review defines the p value, summarizes the historical origins of the p value approach to hypothesis testing, describes various applications of p?0.05 in the context of clinical research and discusses the emergence of p?5×10?8 and other values as thresholds for genomic statistical analyses. Corresponding issues include a conceptual approach of evaluating whether data do not conform to a null hypothesis (ie, no exposure?outcome association). Importantly, and in the historical context of when p?0.05 was first proposed, the 1-in-20 chance of a false-positive inference (ie, falsely concluding the existence of an exposure?outcome association) was offered only as a suggestion. In current usage, however, p?0.05 is often misunderstood as a rigid threshold, sometimes with a misguided ?win? (p?0.05) or ?lose? (p>0.05) approach. Also, in contemporary genomic studies, a threshold of p?10?8 has been endorsed as a boundary for statistical significance when analyzing numerous genetic comparisons for each participant. A value of p?0.05, or other thresholds, should not be employed reflexively to determine whether a clinical research investigation is trustworthy from a scientific perspective. Rather, and in parallel with conceptual issues of validity and generalizability, quantitative results should be interpreted using a combined assessment of strength of association, p values, CIs, and sample size. äP values: from suggestion to superstition (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing