[問題] Reviewer叫我解釋P值小於0.05的部份?
不好意思想請教各位統計高手
我寫的paper最近被要求revise，其中關於統計的部份
Reviewer回覆"Lines 112-113 on statistical significance need to be clarified.
There are 27 p values, so by chance alone one or two would be expected to fall
at p < 0.05. The authors should explain that p < 0.05 was used to look for
potential differences, not statistical significance.
The only cases of p < 0.05 favored the Stratus, so readers can be confident
that Spectralis was not better, and this was not a matter of sample size."
其實我的原文只有"A p value of < 0.05 was considered to be statistically
significant, and all statistical tests were two-sided."
不知道有沒有板友知道reviewer想要我解釋的是什麼?
我不是學統計出身...一直以為P<0.05就代表statistically significant呀 = =
補充說明:
Stratus跟Spectralis是我比較兩種工具，paper是利用兩種工具做出的參數值
來比較它們兩個的表現能力孰優孰劣
我使用的統計只是很簡單的t-test (for continuous variables)跟chi-square (for
categorical variables)...
盼統計強者不吝回答><
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 122.117.232.112
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Statistics/M.1432314926.A.9F9.html
推
05/23 01:56, , 1F
05/23 01:56, 1F
→
05/23 01:57, , 2F
05/23 01:57, 2F
→
05/23 01:59, , 3F
05/23 01:59, 3F
→
05/23 02:22, , 4F
05/23 02:22, 4F
→
05/23 02:23, , 5F
05/23 02:23, 5F
→
05/23 02:24, , 6F
05/23 02:24, 6F
→
05/23 02:25, , 7F
05/23 02:25, 7F
→
05/23 02:26, , 8F
05/23 02:26, 8F
→
05/23 02:28, , 9F
05/23 02:28, 9F
→
05/23 02:28, , 10F
05/23 02:28, 10F
推
05/23 02:33, , 11F
05/23 02:33, 11F
→
05/23 02:36, , 12F
05/23 02:36, 12F
推
05/23 11:19, , 13F
05/23 11:19, 13F
→
05/23 13:50, , 14F
05/23 13:50, 14F
→
05/23 13:50, , 15F
05/23 13:50, 15F
→
05/23 13:52, , 16F
05/23 13:52, 16F
→
05/23 13:52, , 17F
05/23 13:52, 17F
→
05/23 13:53, , 18F
05/23 13:53, 18F
→
05/23 13:54, , 19F
05/23 13:54, 19F
→
05/23 13:55, , 20F
05/23 13:55, 20F
→
05/23 13:55, , 21F
05/23 13:55, 21F
→
05/24 06:51, , 22F
05/24 06:51, 22F
→
05/24 06:52, , 23F
05/24 06:52, 23F
→
05/24 06:53, , 24F
05/24 06:53, 24F
→
05/24 06:53, , 25F
05/24 06:53, 25F
→
05/24 06:55, , 26F
05/24 06:55, 26F
→
05/24 15:46, , 27F
05/24 15:46, 27F