86
submitted 1 year ago by ragica@lemmy.ml to c/science@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] smfx@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 year ago

A study of 170 people?!? That seems a little low as an n count to be drawing such sweeping conclusions from.

[-] CrateDane@feddit.dk 10 points 1 year ago

170 is a fairly substantial sample size, but it does pose challenges with data interpretation when there's no intervention and the expected effect size is small.

Life sciences often uses much smaller sample sizes, but with intervention.

At the absolute minimum, the headline here should be "found no evidence of" rather than "do not". The good old absence of evidence vs. evidence of absence thing.

load more comments (5 replies)
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
86 points (88.4% liked)

Science

13007 readers
51 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS