There is a vast array of new and improved methods for comparing groups and studying associations that offer the potential for substantially increasing power, providing improved control over the probability of a Type I error, and yielding a deeper and more nuanced under- standing of neuroscience data. These new techniques effectively deal with four insights into when and why conventional methods can be unsatisfactory. But for the non-statistician, the vast array of new and improved techniques for comparing groups and studying associations can seem daunting, simply because there are so many new methods that are now available. The paper briefly reviews when and why conventional methods can have relatively low power and yield misleading results. The main goal is to suggest some general guidelines regarding when, how and why certain modern techniques might be used.
- Downloaded 4,939 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 810 out of 93,041
- In neuroscience: 84 out of 16,555
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 4,348 out of 93,041
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 5,946 out of 93,041
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!