arXiv subjects

Magdalena M. Mair

Publications and source records attributed to Magdalena M. Mair.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Equivalence testing in pesticide risk assessment -- Evaluation and practical guidance for design, analysis and interpretation

Harmful pesticide effects exceeding specific protection goals (SPG) may go undetected in underpowered experimental designs. Regulatory honeybee field studies have consistently failed to reach the statistical power required under European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) guidance, which may have caused approval of high-risk substances. Therefore, EFSA advised a shift from testing the null hypothesis of 'no effect' to equivalence testing. Under this approach, a pesticide is classified as 'low risk' if the null hypothesis that its effect exceeds the SPG can be rejected. For honeybees, the recommended SPG is a colony size reduction below 10%. Critics have argued that this framework requires excessive site replication to demonstrate pesticide safety and proposed an alternative equivalence test defining treatment effects relative to the lower bound of the 90%-control-group confidence interval. Using simulations mimicking a regulatory honeybee field study, we show that although the two equivalence tests share the same trade-off between false 'low-risk' and false 'high-risk' classifications, only EFSA's original recommendation reliably identifies pesticides with effects > SPG at alpha = 0.2. Our results show that increasing site replication beyond the current practice is unavoidable for a reliable regulatory assessment. However, for pesticides with effect sizes of 5% or less, site requirements remain lower than those implied by the power requirement of the former EFSA guidance. Moreover, covariate adjustment through a model term or balanced colony allocation using anticlustering randomisation can reduce site requirements without losing power and thus save costs. Finally, we provide guidance and R functions for anticlustering randomisation and equivalence testing for pesticide risk assessment.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Four principles for improved statistical ecology

Increasing attention has been drawn to the misuse of statistical methods over recent years, with particular concern about the prevalence of practices such as poor experimental design, cherry-picking and inadequate reporting. These failures are largely unintentional and no more common in ecology than in other scientific disciplines, with many of them easily remedied given the right guidance. Originating from a discussion at the 2020 International Statistical Ecology Conference, we show how ecologists can build their research following four guiding principles for impactful statistical research practices: 1. Define a focused research question, then plan sampling and analysis to answer it; 2. Develop a model that accounts for the distribution and dependence of your data; 3. Emphasise effect sizes to replace statistical significance with ecological relevance; 4. Report your methods and findings in sufficient detail so that your research is valid and reproducible. Listed in approximate order of importance, these principles provide a framework for experimental design and reporting that guards against unsound practices. Starting with a well-defined research question allows researchers to create an efficient study to answer it, and guards against poor research practices that lead to false positives and poor replicability. Correct and appropriate statistical models give sound conclusions, good reporting practices and a focus on ecological relevance make results impactful and replicable. Illustrated with an example from a recent study into the impact of disturbance on upland swamps, this paper explains the rationale for the selection and use of effective statistical practices and provides practical guidance for ecologists seeking to improve their use of statistical methods.

stat.ME↗