←back to thread

Reproducibility project fails to validate dozens of biomedical studies

(www.nature.com)
246 points rntn | 1 comments | 25 Apr 25 16:14 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jpeloquin ◴[25 Apr 25 22:45 UTC] No.43799186[source]▶
The median sample size of the studies subjected to replication was n = 5 specimens (https://osf.io/atkd7). Probably because only protocols with an estimated cost less than BRL 5,000 (around USD 1,300 at the time) per replication were included. So it's not surprising that only ~ 60% of the original biomechemical assays' point estimates were in the replicates' 95% prediction interval. The mouse maze anxiety test (~ 10%) seems to be dragging down the average. n = 5 just doesn't give reliable estimates, especially in rodent psychology.
replies(1): >>43802358 #
1. yummypaint ◴[26 Apr 25 10:19 UTC] No.43802358[source]▶
This should be the top comment on HN where most users claim to have some grasp of statistics. N=5 implies a statistical uncertainty of about 45%, so they measured what one would expect, which is essentially nothing. Also this is specifically about Brazilian biomedical studies, and contains no evidence to support people's various personal vendettas against other fields in other countries. At least read the article people.