A statistical test and sample size recommendations for comparing community composition following PCA.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Skalski JR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6200243 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206033.].
| S-EPMC8409637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and Objectives:Researchers typically use Cohen's guidelines of Pearson's r = .10, .30, and .50, and Cohen's d = 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 to interpret observed effect sizes as small, medium, or large, respectively. However, these guidelines were not based on quantitative estimates and are only recommended if field-specific estimates are unknown. This study investigated the distribution of effect sizes in both individual differences research and group differences research in gerontology to provide estimates of effect sizes in the field. Research Design and Methods:Effect sizes (Pearson's r, Cohen's d, and Hedges' g) were extracted from meta-analyses published in 10 top-ranked gerontology journals. The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ranks were calculated for Pearson's r (individual differences) and Cohen's d or Hedges' g (group differences) values as indicators of small, medium, and large effects. A priori power analyses were conducted for sample size calculations given the observed effect size estimates. Results:Effect sizes of Pearson's r = .12, .20, and .32 for individual differences research and Hedges' g = 0.16, 0.38, and 0.76 for group differences research were interpreted as small, medium, and large effects in gerontology. Discussion and Implications:Cohen's guidelines appear to overestimate effect sizes in gerontology. Researchers are encouraged to use Pearson's r = .10, .20, and .30, and Cohen's d or Hedges' g = 0.15, 0.40, and 0.75 to interpret small, medium, and large effects in gerontology, and recruit larger samples.
| S-EPMC6736231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Growth reference centile charts are widely used in child health to assess weight, height and other age-varying measurements. The centiles are easy to construct from reference data, using the LMS method or GAMLSS (Generalised Additive Models for Location Scale and Shape). However, there is as yet no clear guidance on how to design such studies, and in particular how many reference data to collect, and this has led to study sizes varying widely. The paper aims to provide a theoretical framework for optimally designing growth reference studies based on cross-sectional data. Centiles for weight, height, body mass index and head circumference, in 6878 boys aged 0-21 years from the Fourth Dutch Growth Study, were fitted using GAMLSS. The effect on precision of varying the sample size and the distribution of measurement ages (sample composition) was explored by fitting a series of GAMLSS models to simulated data. Sample composition was defined as uniform on the ageλ scale, where λ was chosen to give constant precision across the age range. Precision was measured on the z-score scale, and was the same for all four measurements, with a standard error of 0.041 z-score units for the median and 0.066 for the 2nd and 98th centiles. Compared to a naïve calculation, the process of smoothing the centiles increased the notional sample size two- to threefold by 'borrowing strength'. The sample composition for estimating the median curve was optimal for λ=0.4, reflecting considerable over-sampling of infants compared to children. However, for the 2nd and 98th centiles, λ=0.75 was optimal, with less infant over-sampling. The conclusion is that both sample size and sample composition need to be optimised. The paper provides practical advice on design, and concludes that optimally designed studies need 7000-25,000 subjects per sex.
| S-EPMC8008444 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Inference on disease dynamics is typically performed using case reporting time series of symptomatic disease. The inferred dynamics will vary depending on the reporting patterns and surveillance system for the disease in question, and the inference will miss mild or underreported epidemics. To eliminate the variation introduced by differing reporting patterns and to capture asymptomatic or subclinical infection, inferential methods can be applied to serological data sets instead of case reporting data. To reconstruct complete disease dynamics, one would need to collect a serological time series. In the statistical analysis presented here, we consider a particular kind of serological time series with repeated, periodic collections of population-representative serum. We refer to this study design as a serial seroepidemiology (SSE) design, and we base the analysis on our epidemiological knowledge of influenza. We consider a study duration of three to four years, during which a single antigenic type of influenza would be circulating, and we evaluate our ability to reconstruct disease dynamics based on serological data alone. We show that the processes of reinfection, antibody generation, and antibody waning confound each other and are not always statistically identifiable, especially when dynamics resemble a non-oscillating endemic equilibrium behavior. We introduce some constraints to partially resolve this confounding, and we show that transmission rates and basic reproduction numbers can be accurately estimated in SSE study designs. Seasonal forcing is more difficult to identify as serology-based studies only detect oscillations in antibody titers of recovered individuals, and these oscillations are typically weaker than those observed for infected individuals. To accurately estimate the magnitude and timing of seasonal forcing, serum samples should be collected every two months and 200 or more samples should be included in each collection; this sample size estimate is sensitive to the antibody waning rate and the assumed level of seasonal forcing.
| S-EPMC4558460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Inadequate statistical power to detect treatment effects in health research is a problem that is compounded when testing for mediation. In general, the preferred strategy for increasing power is to increase the sample size, but there are many situations where additional participants cannot be recruited, necessitating the use of other methods to increase statistical power. Many of these other strategies, commonly applied to analysis of variance and multiple regression models, can be applied to mediation models with similar results. Additional predictors or blocking variables will increase or decrease statistical power, however, depending on whether these variables are related to the mediator, the outcome, or both. The effect of these two methods on the power for tests of mediation is illustrated through the use of simulations. Implications for health researchers using these methods are discussed.
| S-EPMC4836861 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Researchers in the social and behavioral sciences often have clear expectations about the order/direction of the parameters in their statistical model. For example, a researcher might expect that regression coefficient ?1 is larger than ?2 and ?3. The corresponding hypothesis is H: ?1 > {?2, ?3} and this is known as an (order) constrained hypothesis. A major advantage of testing such a hypothesis is that power can be gained and inherently a smaller sample size is needed. This article discusses this gain in sample size reduction, when an increasing number of constraints is included into the hypothesis. The main goal is to present sample-size tables for constrained hypotheses. A sample-size table contains the necessary sample-size at a pre-specified power (say, 0.80) for an increasing number of constraints. To obtain sample-size tables, two Monte Carlo simulations were performed, one for ANOVA and one for multiple regression. Three results are salient. First, in an ANOVA the needed sample-size decreases with 30-50% when complete ordering of the parameters is taken into account. Second, small deviations from the imposed order have only a minor impact on the power. Third, at the maximum number of constraints, the linear regression results are comparable with the ANOVA results. However, in the case of fewer constraints, ordering the parameters (e.g., ?1 > ?2) results in a higher power than assigning a positive or a negative sign to the parameters (e.g., ?1 > 0).
| S-EPMC4292225 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are many different proposed procedures for sample size planning for the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test at given type-I and type-II error rates α and β, respectively. Most methods assume very specific models or types of data to simplify calculations (eg, ordered categorical or metric data, location shift alternatives, etc). We present a unified approach that covers metric data with and without ties, count data, ordered categorical data, and even dichotomous data. For that, we calculate the unknown theoretical quantities such as the variances under the null and relevant alternative hypothesis by considering the following "synthetic data" approach. We evaluate data whose empirical distribution functions match the theoretical distribution functions involved in the computations of the unknown theoretical quantities. Then, well-known relations for the ranks of the data are used for the calculations. In addition to computing the necessary sample size N for a fixed allocation proportion t = n1 /N, where n1 is the sample size in the first group and N = n1 + n2 is the total sample size, we provide an interval for the optimal allocation rate t, which minimizes the total sample size N. It turns out that, for certain distributions, a balanced design is optimal. We give a characterization of such distributions. Furthermore, we show that the optimal choice of t depends on the ratio of the two variances, which determine the variance of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney statistic under the alternative. This is different from an optimal sample size allocation in case of the normal distribution model.
| S-EPMC6491996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Infant research is hard. It is difficult, expensive, and time consuming to identify, recruit and test infants. As a result, ours is a field of small sample sizes. Many studies using infant looking time as a measure have samples of 8 to 12 infants per cell, and studies with more than 24 infants per cell are uncommon. This paper examines the effect of such sample sizes on statistical power and the conclusions drawn from infant looking time research. An examination of the state of the current literature suggests that most published looking time studies have low power, which leads in the long run to an increase in both false positive and false negative results. Three data sets with large samples (>30 infants) were used to simulate experiments with smaller sample sizes; 1000 random subsamples of 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 infants from the overall samples were selected, making it possible to examine the systematic effect of sample size on the results. This approach revealed that despite clear results with the original large samples, the results with smaller subsamples were highly variable, yielding both false positive and false negative outcomes. Finally, a number of emerging possible solutions are discussed.
| S-EPMC5618719 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Since the early 2010s, the neuroimaging field has paid more attention to the issue of false positives. Several journals have issued guidelines regarding statistical thresholds. Three papers have reported the statistical analysis of the thresholds used in fMRI literature, but they were published at least 3 years ago and surveyed papers published during 2007-2012. This study revisited this topic to evaluate the changes in this field. Methods: The PubMed database was searched to identify the task-based (not resting-state) fMRI papers published in 2017 and record their sample sizes, inferential methods (e.g., voxelwise or clusterwise), theoretical methods (e.g., parametric or non-parametric), significance level, cluster-defining primary threshold (CDT), volume of analysis (whole brain or region of interest) and software used. Results: The majority (95.6%) of the 388 analyzed articles reported statistics corrected for multiple comparisons. A large proportion (69.6%) of the 388 articles reported main results by clusterwise inference. The analyzed articles mostly used software Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM), Analysis of Functional NeuroImages (AFNI), or FMRIB Software Library (FSL) to conduct statistical analysis. There were 70.9%, 37.6%, and 23.1% of SPM, AFNI, and FSL studies, respectively, that used a CDT of p ? 0.001. The statistical sample size across the articles ranged between 7 and 1,299 with a median of 33. Sample size did not significantly correlate with the level of statistical threshold. Conclusion: There were still around 53% (142/270) studies using clusterwise inference that chose a more liberal CDT than p = 0.001 (n = 121) or did not report their CDT (n = 21), down from around 61% reported by Woo et al. (2014). For FSL studies, it seemed that the CDT practice had no improvement since the survey by Woo et al. (2014). A few studies chose unconventional CDT such as p = 0.0125 or 0.004. Such practice might create an impression that the threshold alterations were attempted to show "desired" clusters. The median sample size used in the analyzed articles was similar to those reported in previous surveys. In conclusion, there seemed to be no change in the statistical practice compared to the early 2010s.
| S-EPMC5790797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Segmentation algorithms are typically evaluated by comparison to an accepted reference standard. The cost of generating accurate reference standards for medical image segmentation can be substantial. Since the study cost and the likelihood of detecting a clinically meaningful difference in accuracy both depend on the size and on the quality of the study reference standard, balancing these trade-offs supports the efficient use of research resources. In this work, we derive a statistical power calculation that enables researchers to estimate the appropriate sample size to detect clinically meaningful differences in segmentation accuracy (i.e. the proportion of voxels matching the reference standard) between two algorithms. Furthermore, we derive a formula to relate reference standard errors to their effect on the sample sizes of studies using lower-quality (but potentially more affordable and practically available) reference standards. The accuracy of the derived sample size formula was estimated through Monte Carlo simulation, demonstrating, with 95% confidence, a predicted statistical power within 4% of simulated values across a range of model parameters. This corresponds to sample size errors of less than 4 subjects and errors in the detectable accuracy difference less than 0.6%. The applicability of the formula to real-world data was assessed using bootstrap resampling simulations for pairs of algorithms from the PROMISE12 prostate MR segmentation challenge data set. The model predicted the simulated power for the majority of algorithm pairs within 4% for simulated experiments using a high-quality reference standard and within 6% for simulated experiments using a low-quality reference standard. A case study, also based on the PROMISE12 data, illustrates using the formulae to evaluate whether to use a lower-quality reference standard in a prostate segmentation study.
| S-EPMC5666910 | biostudies-literature