Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Jeremy S. C. Clark

Publications and source records attributed to Jeremy S. C. Clark.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Triplication: an important component of the modern scientific method

A scientific-study protocol (defined) is designed to deliver results from which inductive inference is allowed. In the nineteenth century, triplication was introduced into the plant sciences and Fisher's p<0.05 rule (1925) incorporated into triple-result protocols designed to counter random/systematic errors which contribute to real-world variability. The aims of the present study were to: (1) classify replication protocols; (2) assess their prevalence in plant-science studies (published during one twenty-first-century year; for defined variable construct); (3) explore triplication rationale. Methods: a plant-sciences protocol-prevalence report was produced; experimental/associational-study proportions analyzed; and real-world-data proxies used to show confidence-interval-width patterns with increasing replicate number. Results: 25% plant-science studies analyzed showed triplication, including 11% triple-result protocols (including greater replicate numbers: 48%;17%, respectively). Theoretical considerations indicated that even if systematic errors predominate, (previously-known) square-root rules sometimes apply, contributing to triplication importance (exemplified by real-world-data proxies). Conclusions: The defined protocols, with minor modifications, should provide the means for assessment of most sciences. Triplication was extensively applied in studies analysed and there are strong methodological reasons why triplication, rather than duplication/quadruplication, is the appropriate standard: triple-result protocols: (a) effectively reduce false positives to acceptable levels; (b) give qualitatively-different information (shape) from duplication; (c) have a large efficiency advantage (concerning confidence-interval widths) over quadruplication. The application of batch replication is not, primarily, a statistical problem and cannot effectively be replaced by simulation.

q-bio.QM↗

Kruskal-Wallis Power Studies Utilizing Bernstein Distributions; preliminary empirical studies using simulations/medical studies

Bernstein fits implemented into R allow another route for Kruskal-Wallis power-study tool development. Monte-Carlo Kruskal-Wallis power studies were compared with measured power, with Monte-Carlo ANOVA equivalent and with an analytical method, with or without normalization, using four simulated runs each with 60-100 populations (each population with N=30000 from a set of Pearson-type ranges): random selection gave 6300 samples analysed for predictive power. Three medical-study datasets (Dialysis/systolic blood pressure; Diabetes/sleep-hours; Marital-status/high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol) were also analysed. In three from four simulated runs (run_one, run_one_relaxed, and run_three) with Pearson types pooled, Monte-Carlo Kruskal-Wallis gave predicted sample sizes significantly slightly lower than measured but more accurate than with ANOVA methods; the latter gave high sample-size predictions. Populations (run_one_relaxed) with ANOVA assumptions invalid gave Kruskal-Wallis predictions similar to those measured. In two from three medical studies, Kruskal-Wallis predictions (Dialysis: similar predictions; Marital: higher than measured) were more accurate than ANOVA (both higher than measured) but in one (Diabetes) the reverse was found (Kruskal-Wallis: lower; Monte-Carlo ANOVA: similar to measured). These preliminary studies appear to show that Monte-Carlo Kruskal-Wallis power studies based on Bernstein fits might perform better than ANOVA equivalents in many settings (and provide reasonable results when ANOVA cannot be used); and both Monte-Carlo methods appeared considerably more accurate than the analysed analytical version.

q-bio.QM↗