Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39593909›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Evidential Analysis: An Alternative to Hypothesis Testing in Normal Linear Models.

Brian Dennis, Mark L Taper, José M Ponciano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Brian DennisDepartment of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7917-1424
Mark L TaperDepartment of Ecology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA.
José M PoncianoDepartment of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Statistical hypothesis testing, as formalized by 20th century statisticians and taught in college statistics courses, has been a cornerstone of 100 years of scientific progress. Nevertheless, the methodology is increasingly questioned in many scientific disciplines. We demonstrate in this paper how many of the worrisome aspects of statistical hypothesis testing can be ameliorated with concepts and methods from evidential analysis. The model family we treat is the familiar normal linear model with fixed effects, embracing multiple regression and analysis of variance, a warhorse of everyday science in labs and field stations. Questions about study design, the applicability of the null hypothesis, the effect size, error probabilities, evidence strength, and model misspecification become more naturally housed in an evidential setting. We provide a completely worked example featuring a two-way analysis of variance.

Indexed as

AICBICevidenceevidence functionshypothesis testingKullback–Leiblerlinear modelsNeyman–Pearsonnoncentral distributionSchwarz information criterionSIC

Identifiers

PMID39593909
PMCPMC11592954

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.