Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34686696›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Use of the p-values as a size-dependent function to address practical differences when analyzing large datasets.

Estibaliz Gómez-de-Mariscal, Vanesa Guerrero, Alexandra Sneider, Hasini Jayatilaka, Jude M Phillip, Denis Wirtz, Arrate Muñoz-Barrutia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Author's response to letter to editor.Clinical rheumatology · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Estibaliz Gómez-de-MariscalBioengineering and Aerospace Engineering Department, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 28911, Leganés, Spain.
Vanesa GuerreroStatistics Department, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 28903, Getafe, Spain.
Alexandra SneiderDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Institute for Nanobiotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Hasini JayatilakaAtlasXomics Inc., New Haven, CT, 06511, USA.
Jude M PhillipDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Denis WirtzDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Institute for Nanobiotechnology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA.
Arrate Muñoz-BarrutiaBioengineering and Aerospace Engineering Department, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 28911, Leganés, Spain. mamunozb@ing.uc3m.es.

Funding

Technological Assessment and Solutions Core - RC4P30AG021334 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Jeremy D Walston · 2003 to 2026
$33.2M
TRANS NETWORK PROJECTSU54CA143868 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SEARSON, PETER C · 2009 to 2013
$13.7M
Validation of Nuclear Morphology as a Biomarker of Aging and Aging-Related PhenotypesU01AG060903 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI WIRTZ, DENIS · 2018 to 2022
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS U54 CA143868NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021334NIA NIH HHS U01 AG060903NIH HHS P30AG021334NIH HHS U54CA143868NIH HHS UO1AG060903
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomedical research has come to rely on p-values as a deterministic measure for data-driven decision-making. In the largely extended null hypothesis significance testing for identifying statistically significant differences among groups of observations, a single p-value is computed from sample data. Then, it is routinely compared with a threshold, commonly set to 0.05, to assess the evidence against the hypothesis of having non-significant differences among groups, or the null hypothesis. Because the estimated p-value tends to decrease when the sample size is increased, applying this methodology to datasets with large sample sizes results in the rejection of the null hypothesis, making it not meaningful in this specific situation. We propose a new approach to detect differences based on the dependence of the p-value on the sample size. We introduce new descriptive parameters that overcome the effect of the size in the p-value interpretation in the framework of datasets with large sample sizes, reducing the uncertainty in the decision about the existence of biological differences between the compared experiments. The methodology enables the graphical and quantitative characterization of the differences between the compared experiments guiding the researchers in the decision process. An in-depth study of the methodology is carried out on simulated and experimental data. Code availability at https://github.com/BIIG-UC3M/pMoSS .

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCell Line, TumorData Interpretation, StatisticalDatasets as TopicHumansProbabilityResearch DesignSample SizeUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID34686696
PMCPMC8536742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.