Suppr超能文献

植物病理学研究中的统计功效

Statistical Power in Plant Pathology Research.

作者信息

Gent David H, Esker Paul D, Kriss Alissa B

机构信息

First author: U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Forage Seed and Cereal Research Unit, and Oregon State University, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Corvallis 97331; second author: Department of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology, Penn State University, University Park 16802; and third author: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Greensboro, NC 27409.

出版信息

Phytopathology. 2018 Jan;108(1):15-22. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-03-17-0098-LE. Epub 2017 Oct 30.

Abstract

In null hypothesis testing, failure to reject a null hypothesis may have two potential interpretations. One interpretation is that the treatments being evaluated do not have a significant effect, and a correct conclusion was reached in the analysis. Alternatively, a treatment effect may have existed but the conclusion of the study was that there was none. This is termed a Type II error, which is most likely to occur when studies lack sufficient statistical power to detect a treatment effect. In basic terms, the power of a study is the ability to identify a true effect through a statistical test. The power of a statistical test is 1 - (the probability of Type II errors), and depends on the size of treatment effect (termed the effect size), variance, sample size, and significance criterion (the probability of a Type I error, α). Low statistical power is prevalent in scientific literature in general, including plant pathology. However, power is rarely reported, creating uncertainty in the interpretation of nonsignificant results and potentially underestimating small, yet biologically significant relationships. The appropriate level of power for a study depends on the impact of Type I versus Type II errors and no single level of power is acceptable for all purposes. Nonetheless, by convention 0.8 is often considered an acceptable threshold and studies with power less than 0.5 generally should not be conducted if the results are to be conclusive. The emphasis on power analysis should be in the planning stages of an experiment. Commonly employed strategies to increase power include increasing sample sizes, selecting a less stringent threshold probability for Type I errors, increasing the hypothesized or detectable effect size, including as few treatment groups as possible, reducing measurement variability, and including relevant covariates in analyses. Power analysis will lead to more efficient use of resources and more precisely structured hypotheses, and may even indicate some studies should not be undertaken. However, the conclusions of adequately powered studies are less prone to erroneous conclusions and inflated estimates of treatment effectiveness, especially when effect sizes are small.

摘要

在零假设检验中,未能拒绝零假设可能有两种潜在的解释。一种解释是所评估的处理没有显著效果,并且在分析中得出了正确的结论。另一种情况是,可能存在处理效应,但研究得出的结论是不存在处理效应。这被称为II型错误,当研究缺乏足够的统计效力来检测处理效应时,这种错误最容易发生。从基本层面上讲,研究的效力是通过统计检验识别真实效应的能力。统计检验的效力为1 - (II型错误的概率),并且取决于处理效应的大小(称为效应量)、方差、样本量和显著性标准(I型错误的概率α)。一般来说,低统计效力在包括植物病理学在内的科学文献中很普遍。然而,效力很少被报告,这使得对无显著结果的解释存在不确定性,并可能低估虽小但具有生物学意义的关系。一项研究的适当效力水平取决于I型错误与II型错误的影响,并且没有一个单一的效力水平适用于所有目的。尽管如此,按照惯例,0.8通常被认为是一个可接受的阈值,如果要得出确定性的结果,效力小于0.5的研究通常不应进行。对效力分析的重视应该在实验的规划阶段。常用的提高效力的策略包括增加样本量、为I型错误选择不太严格的阈值概率、增加假设的或可检测的效应量、尽可能减少处理组的数量、降低测量变异性以及在分析中纳入相关协变量。效力分析将导致更有效地利用资源和更精确地构建假设,甚至可能表明某些研究不应进行。然而,效力充足的研究得出的结论不太容易出现错误结论和对处理效果的夸大估计,尤其是当效应量较小时。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验