Explore the vast range of titles available.

It is widely acknowledged that the biomedical literature suffers from a surfeit of false positive results. Part of the reason for this is the persistence of the myth that observation of p < 0.05 is sufficient justification to claim that you have made a discovery. It is hopeless to expect users to change their reliance on p-values unless they are offered an alternative way of judging the reliability of their conclusions. If the alternative method is to have a chance of being adopted widely, it will have to be easy to understand and to calculate. One such proposal is based on calculation of false positive risk(FPR). It is suggested that p-values and confidence intervals should continue to be given, but that they should be supplemented by a single additional number that conveys the strength of the evidence better than the p-value. This number could be the minimum FPR (that calculated on the assumption of a prior probability of 0.5, the largest value that can be assumed in the absence of hard prior data). Alternatively one could specify the prior probability that it would be necessary to believe in order to achieve an FPR of, say, 0.05.

The most widely used task functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) analyses use parametric statistical methods that depend on a variety of assumptions. In this work, we use real resting-state data and a total of 3 million random task group analyses to compute empirical familywise error rates for the fMRI software packages SPM, FSL, and AFNI, as well as a nonparametric permutation method. For a nominal familywise error rate of 5%, the parametric statistical methods are shown to be conservative for voxelwise inference and invalid for clusterwise inference. Our results suggest that the principal cause of the invalid cluster inferences is spatial autocorrelation functions that do not follow the assumed Gaussian shape. By comparison, the nonparametric permutation test is found to produce nominal results for voxelwise as well as clusterwise inference. These findings speak to the need of validating the statistical methods being used in the field of neuroimaging.

Recent reports of inflated false-positive rates (FPRs) in FMRI group analysis tools by Eklund and associates in 2016 have become a large topic within (and outside) neuroimaging. They concluded that existing parametric methods for determining statistically significant clusters had greatly inflated FPRs (“up to 70%,” mainly due to the faulty assumption that the noise spatial autocorrelation function is Gaussian shaped and stationary), calling into question potentially “countless” previous results; in contrast, nonparametric methods, such as their approach, accurately reflected nominal 5% FPRs. They also stated that AFNI showed “particularly high” FPRs compared to other software, largely due to a bug in 3dClustSim. We comment on these points using their own results and figures and by repeating some of their simulations. Briefly, while parametric methods show some FPR inflation in those tests (and assumptions of Gaussian-shaped spatial smoothness also appear to be generally incorrect), their emphasis on reporting the single worst result from thousands of simulation cases greatly exaggerated the scale of the problem. Importantly, FPR statistics depends on “task” paradigm and voxelwise p value threshold; as such, we show how results of their study provide useful suggestions for FMRI study design and analysis, rather than simply a catastrophic downgrading of the field's earlier results. Regarding AFNI (which we maintain), 3dClustSim's bug effect was greatly overstated—their own results show that AFNI results were not “particularly” worse than others. We describe further updates in AFNI for characterizing spatial smoothness more appropriately (greatly reducing FPRs, although some remain >5%); in addition, we outline two newly implemented permutation/randomization-based approaches producing FPRs clustered much more tightly about 5% for voxelwise p ≤ 0.01.

Procedures for controlling the false positive rate when performing many hypothesis tests are commonplace in health and medical studies. Such procedures, most notably the Bonferroni adjustment, suffer from the problem that error rate control cannot be localized to individual tests, and that these procedures do not distinguish between exploratory and/or data-driven testing vs. hypothesis-driven testing. Instead, procedures derived from limiting false discovery rates may be a more appealing method to control error rates in multiple tests. Controlling the false positive rate can lead to philosophical inconsistencies that can negatively impact the practice of reporting statistically significant findings. We demonstrate that the false discovery rate approach can overcome these inconsistencies and illustrate its benefit through an application to two recent health studies. The false discovery rate approach is more powerful than methods like the Bonferroni procedure that control false positive rates. Controlling the false discovery rate in a study that arguably consisted of scientifically driven hypotheses found nearly as many significant results as without any adjustment, whereas the Bonferroni procedure found no significant results. Although still unfamiliar to many health researchers, the use of false discovery rate control in the context of multiple testing can provide a solid basis for drawing conclusions about statistical significance.

The ratio of false-positive to false-negative findings (FP:FN ratio) is an informative metric that warrants further evaluation. The FP:FN ratio varies greatly across different epidemiologic areas. In genetic epidemiology, it has varied from very high values (possibly even >100:1) for associations reported in candidate-gene studies to very low values (1:100 or lower) for associations with genome-wide significance. The substantial reduction over time in the FP:FN ratio in human genome epidemiology has corresponded to the routine adoption of stringent inferential criteria and comprehensive, agnostic reporting of all analyses. Most traditional fields of epidemiologic research more closely follow the practices of past candidate gene epidemiology, and thus have high FP:FN ratios. Further, FP and FN results do not necessarily entail the same consequences, and their relative importance may vary in different settings. This ultimately has implications for what is the acceptable FP:FN ratio and for how the results of published epidemiologic studies should be presented and interpreted.

Deception researchers widely acknowledge that cues to deception—observable behaviors that may differ between truthful and deceptive messages—tend to be weak. Nevertheless, several deception cues have been reported with unusually large effect sizes, and some researchers have advocated the use of such cues as tools for detecting deceit and assessing credibility in practical contexts. By examining data from empirical deception-cue research and using a series of Monte Carlo simulations, I demonstrate that many estimated effect sizes of deception cues may be greatly inflated by publication bias, small numbers of estimates, and low power. Indeed, simulations indicate the informational value of the present deception literature is quite low, such that it is not possible to determine whether any given effect is real or a false positive. I warn against the hazards of relying on potentially illusory cues to deception and offer some recommendations for improving the state of the science of deception.

Many studies have shown that re-positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR in recovered COVID-19 patients are very common. We aim to conduct this review to summarize the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of these patients and discuss the potential explanations for recurrences, the contagiousness of re-detectable positive SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the management of COVID-19 patients after discharge from hospital. The proportion of re-positive tests in discharged COVID-19 patients varied from 2.4 to 69.2% and persisted from 1 to 38 days after discharge, depending on population size, age of patients, and type of specimens. Currently, several causes of re-positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 in recovered COVID-19 patients are suggested, including false-negative, false-positive RT-PCR tests; reactivation; and re-infection with SARS-CoV-2, but the mechanism leading to these re-positive cases is still unclear. The prevention of re-positive testing in discharged patients is a fundamental measure to control the spread of the pandemic. In order to reduce the percentage of false-negative tests prior to discharge, we recommend performing more than two tests, according to the standard sampling and microbiological assay protocol. In addition, specimens should be collected from multiple body parts if possible, to identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA before discharge. Further studies should be conducted to develop novel assays that target a crucial region of the RNA genome in order to improve its sensitivity and specificity.

In this article, we accomplish two things. First, we show that despite empirical psychologists' nominal endorsement of a low rate of false-positive findings (< .05), flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting dramatically increases actual false-positive rates. In many cases, a researcher is more likely to falsely find evidence that an effect exists than to correctly find evidence that it does not. We present computer simulations and a pair of actual experiments that demonstrate how unacceptably easy it is to accumulate (and report) statistically significant evidence for a false hypothesis. Second, we suggest a simple, low-cost, and straightforwardly effective disclosure-based solution to this problem. The solution involves six concrete requirements for authors and four guidelines for reviewers, all of which impose a minimal burden on the publication process.

The interpretation of forensic fingerprint evidence relies on the expertise of latent print examiners. The National Research Council of the National Academies and the legal and forensic sciences communities have called for research to measure the accuracy and reliability of latent print examiners' decisions, a challenging and complex problem in need of systematic analysis. Our research is focused on the development of empirical approaches to studying this problem. Here, we report on the first large-scale study of the accuracy and reliability of latent print examiners' decisions, in which 169 latent print examiners each compared approximately 100 pairs of latent and exemplar fingerprints from a pool of 744 pairs. The fingerprints were selected to include a range of attributes and quality encountered in forensic casework, and to be comparable to searches of an automated fingerprint identification system containing more than 58 million subjects. This study evaluated examiners on key decision points in the fingerprint examination process; procedures used operationally include additional safeguards designed to minimize errors. Five examiners made false positive errors for an overall false positive rate of 0.1%. Eighty-five percent of examiners made at least one false negative error for an overall false negative rate of 7.5%. Independent examination of the same comparisons by different participants (analogous to blind verification) was found to detect all false positive errors and the majority of false negative errors in this study. Examiners frequently differed on whether fingerprints were suitable for reaching a conclusion.

The human brain is a complex network of anatomically segregated regions interconnected by white matter pathways, known as the human connectome. Diffusion tensor imaging can be used to reconstruct this structural brain network in vivo and noninvasively. However, due to a wide variety of influences, both false positive and false negative connections may occur. By choosing a ‘group threshold’, brain networks of multiple subjects can be combined into a single reconstruction, affecting the occurrence of these false positives and negatives. In this case, only connections that are detected in a large enough percentage of the subjects, specified by the group threshold, are considered to be present. Although this group threshold has a substantial impact on the resulting reconstruction and subsequent analyses, it is often chosen intuitively. Here, we introduce a model to estimate how the choice of group threshold influences the presence of false positives and negatives. Based on our findings, group thresholds should preferably be chosen between 30% and 90%. Our results further suggest that a group threshold of circa 60% is a suitable setting, providing a good balance between the elimination of false positives and false negatives. ► The impact of the group threshold on false positives and negatives is modeled. ► The group threshold has a substantial impact on network metrics and errors. ► Group thresholds should preferably be chosen between 30% and 90%. ► A group threshold of circa 60% appears to be appropriate for most applications.