Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1080/01621459.2016.1240079 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1080/01621459.2016.1240079 C5976261!5976261 !29861517     free     free     free Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\29861517 .jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       J+Am+Stat+Assoc 2017 ; 112 (517 ): 1-10 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=29861517 |t=2017. On the Reproducibility of Psychological Science |pdf=|usr=}}{{29861517 }} gab.com Text On the Reproducibility of Psychological Science JO: J Am Stat Assoc http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29861517 #FOAvip Investigators from a large consortium of scientists recently performed a multi-year study in which they replicated 100 psychology experiments. Although statistically significant results were reported in 97% of the original studies, statistical significance was achieved in only 36% of the replicated studies. This article presents a reanalysis of these data based on a formal statistical model that accounts for publication bias by treating outcomes from unpublished studies as missing data, while simultaneously estimating the distribution of effect sizes for those studies that tested nonnull effects. The resulting model suggests that more than 90% of tests performed in eligible psychology experiments tested negligible effects, and that publication biases based on p-values caused the observed rates of nonreproducibility. The results of this reanalysis provide a compelling argument for both increasing the threshold required for declaring scientific discoveries and for adopting statistical summaries of evidence that account for the high proportion of tested hypotheses that are false. Supplementary materials for this article are available online. Twit Text FOAVip On the Reproducibility of Psychological Science ????J Am Stat Assoc http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29861517 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29861517 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|29861517 }}</ref> On the Reproducibility of Psychological Science #MMPMID29861517 Johnson VE ; Payne RD ; Wang T ; Asher A ; Mandal S J Am Stat Assoc 2017[]; 112 (517 ): 1-10 PMID29861517 show ga Investigators from a large consortium of scientists recently performed a multi-year study in which they replicated 100 psychology experiments. Although statistically significant results were reported in 97% of the original studies, statistical significance was achieved in only 36% of the replicated studies. This article presents a reanalysis of these data based on a formal statistical model that accounts for publication bias by treating outcomes from unpublished studies as missing data, while simultaneously estimating the distribution of effect sizes for those studies that tested nonnull effects. The resulting model suggests that more than 90% of tests performed in eligible psychology experiments tested negligible effects, and that publication biases based on p-values caused the observed rates of nonreproducibility. The results of this reanalysis provide a compelling argument for both increasing the threshold required for declaring scientific discoveries and for adopting statistical summaries of evidence that account for the high proportion of tested hypotheses that are false. Supplementary materials for this article are available online. äOn the Reproducibility of Psychological Science (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing