ArticleJournal of translational medicine2024
On the use of receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to determine the most appropriate p value significance threshold.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2024. 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.
- Article
- An Interpretable AdaBoost Model for 1-Year Readmission Risk Prediction in AECOPD Patients with Hypertension.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Article
- TheJournal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- On the effect of flexible adjustment of the p value significance threshold on the reproducibility of randomized clinical trials.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluating Biomarkers of Bone Health After an 8-Week Walking Program in Non-Ambulatory Stroke Survivors: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Credibility of theJournal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundp value is the most common statistic reported in scientific research articles. Choosing the conventional threshold of 0.05 commonly used for the p value in research articles, is unfounded. Many researchers have tried to provide a reasonable threshold for the p value; some proposed a lower threshold, eg, 0.005. However, none of the proposals has gained universal acceptance. Using the analogy between the diagnostic tests with continuous results and statistical inference tests of hypothesis, I wish to present a method to calculate the most appropriate p value significance threshold using the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis.
resultsAs with diagnostic tests where the most appropriate cut-off values are different depending on the situation, there is no unique cut-off for the p significance threshold. Unlike the previous proposals, which mostly suggest lowering the threshold to a fixed value (eg, from 0.05 to 0.005), the most appropriate p significance threshold proposed here, in most instances, is much less than the conventional cut-off of 0.05 and varies from study to study and from statistical test to test, even within a single study. The proposed method provides the minimum weighted sum of type I and type II errors.
conclusionsGiven the perplexity involved in using the frequentist statistics in a correct way (dealing with different p significance thresholds, even in a single study), it seems that the p value is no longer a proper statistic to be used in our research; it should be replaced by alternative methods, eg, Bayesian methods.
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.