Dataset Information

'Statistical Irreproducibility' Does Not Improve with Larger Sample Size: How to Quantify and Address Disease Data Multimodality in Human and Animal Research.

ABSTRACT: Poor study reproducibility is a concern in translational research. As a solution, it is recommended to increase sample size (N), i.e., add more subjects to experiments. The goal of this study was to examine/visualize data multimodality (data with >1 data peak/mode) as cause of study irreproducibility. To emulate the repetition of studies and random sampling of study subjects, we first used various simulation methods of random number generation based on preclinical published disease outcome data from human gut microbiota-transplantation rodent studies (e.g., intestinal inflammation and univariate/continuous). We first used unimodal distributions (one-mode, Gaussian, and binomial) to generate random numbers. We showed that increasing N does not reproducibly identify statistical differences when group comparisons are repeatedly simulated. We then used multimodal distributions (>1-modes and Markov chain Monte Carlo methods of random sampling) to simulate similar multimodal datasets A and B (t-test-p = 0.95; N = 100,000), and confirmed that increasing N does not improve the 'reproducibility of statistical results or direction of the effects'. Data visualization with violin plots of categorical random data simulations with five-integer categories/five-groups illustrated how multimodality leads to irreproducibility. Re-analysis of data from a human clinical trial that used maltodextrin as dietary placebo illustrated multimodal responses between human groups, and after placebo consumption. In conclusion, increasing N does not necessarily ensure reproducible statistical findings across repeated simulations due to randomness and multimodality. Herein, we clarify how to quantify, visualize and address disease data multimodality in research. Data visualization could facilitate study designs focused on disease subtypes/modes to help understand person-person differences and personalized medicine.

SUBMITTER: Basson AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8005169 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Dataset Information

'Statistical Irreproducibility' Does Not Improve with Larger Sample Size: How to Quantify and Address Disease Data Multimodality in Human and Animal Research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets