ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2022
Better Inference in Neuroscience: Test Less, Estimate More.
Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Interactive Brain Atlas of Knowledge.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- A Bayesian Multi-Factorial Design and Analysis for Estimating Combined Effects of Multiple Interventions in a Pragmatic Clinical Trial to Improve Dementia Care.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Alternative to the statistical mass confusion of testing for "no effect".The Journal of cell biology · 2025Article
- Neuropeptide Y Signaling Regulates Recurrent Excitation in the Auditory Midbrain.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Abundant Aβ fibrils in ultracentrifugal supernatants of aqueous extracts from Alzheimer's disease brains.Neuron · 2023Article
- Neuropeptide Y signaling regulates recurrent excitation in the auditory midbrain.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Stop Reproducing the Reproducibility Crisis.eNeuro · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST) has become the main tool of inference in neuroscience, and yet evidence suggests we do not use this tool well: tests are often planned poorly, conducted unfairly, and interpreted invalidly. This editorial makes the case that in addition to reforms to increase rigor we should test less, reserving NHST for clearly confirmatory contexts in which the researcher has derived a quantitative prediction, can provide the inputs needed to plan a quality test, and can specify the criteria not only for confirming their hypothesis but also for rejecting it. A reduction in testing would be accompanied by an expansion of the use of estimation [effect sizes and confidence intervals (CIs)]. Estimation is more suitable for exploratory research, provides the inputs needed to plan strong tests, and provides important contexts for properly interpreting tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.