Gyroscopic Investing

Multiple misinterpretations of P values exist, but the most common one is that they represent the “probability that the studied hypothesis is true.” A P value of .02 (2%) is wrongly considered to mean that the null hypothesis (eg, the drug is as effective as placebo) is 2% likely to be true and the alternative (eg, the drug is more effective than placebo) is 98% likely to be correct. Overtrust ensues when it is forgotten that “proper inference requires full reporting and transparency.” Better-looking (smaller) P values alone do not guarantee full reporting and transparency. In fact, smaller P values may hint to selective reporting and nontransparency. The most common misuse of the P value is to make “scientific conclusions and business or policy decisions” based on “whether a P value passes a specific threshold” even though “a P value, or statistical significance, does not measure the size of an effect or the importance of a result,” and “by itself, a P value does not provide a good measure of evidence.”

These 3 major problems mean that passing a statistical significance threshold (traditionally P = .05) is wrongly equated with a finding or an outcome (eg, an association or a treatment effect) being true, valid, and worth acting on. These misconceptions affect researchers, journals, readers, and users of research articles, and even media and the public who consume scientific information. Most claims supported with P values slightly below .05 are probably false (ie, the claimed associations and treatment effects do not exist). Even among those claims that are true, few are worth acting on in medicine and health care.

WiseOne wrote:I've long been dubious about the idea that every living human should undergo regular diagnostic testing and take multiple preventive medications without an individualized benefit/risk/cost assessment. It seems I'm not such a nut ball after all.

WiseOne wrote: In the case of flu, you don't have that situation so it becomes a personal benefit/risk decision. At least one hospital I'm aware of IMHO has gone over the line with their requirement for even employees allergic to eggs to take the vaccine. On the other hand, you should know that healthy people in their 20s and 30s have died from this year's flu, while the elderly have had relatively mild symptoms. I'm personally glad I got the vaccine given this, even if all it does is shorten the course/reduce symptoms. The problem is you don't know in advance how the year will play out.

Kriegsspiel wrote:

Kriegsspiel wrote:I am now offended by the distinct anti-Appalachian bias here! rabble rabble