Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41701787›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Outliers (typically) cannot cause type I errors in one-sample/paired t-tests.

Alan Wisler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Alan WislerDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2601-2846

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The presence of outlying data points can have a significant impact on statistical modeling and significance testing. In the specific context of one-sample t-tests, prior studies have shown (primarily through simulations) that outliers make it more likely for t-tests to fail to reject the null hypothesis. In this study, we investigate the opposite scenario: when an outlier can cause the rejection of the null hypothesis. While it may seem intuitive that outliers aligned with the direction of an effect strengthen that effect, prior studies have shown that this is not always the case. Towards this end, we introduce mathematical bounds on how large outliers can be while still increasing the t-statistic in a given sample. These bounds are validated and supported using Monte-Carlo simulations and a survey of available data sets. From these results, we find that although it is not impossible for outliers to cause significant results in paired or one-sample t-tests, it can only occur under rather narrow circumstances. Specifically, it requires a concordant outlier, a minimal sample size of ([Formula: see text]), and a sufficiently small effect size ([Formula: see text]). Based on these findings, we argue that the risk of isolated outliers causing type I errors is low in many practical situations, especially when sample sizes are small.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansMonte Carlo MethodSample Size

Identifiers

PMID41701787
PMCPMC12912702

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.