Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Scientists often interpret P-values as measures of the relative strength of statistical findings. This is common practice in large-scale genomic studies where P-values are used to choose which of numerous hypothesis test results should be pursued in subsequent research. In this study, we examine P-value variability to assess the degree of certainty P-values provide. We develop prediction intervals for the P-value in a replication study given the P-value observed in an initial study. The intervals depend on the initial value of P and the ratio of sample sizes between the initial and replication studies, but not on the underlying effect size or initial sample size. The intervals are valid for most large-sample statistical tests in any context, and can be used in the presence of single or multiple tests. While P-values are highly variable, future P-value variability can be explicitly predicted based on a P-value from an initial study. The relative size of the replication and initial study is an important predictor of the P-value in a subsequent replication study. We provide a handy calculator implementing these results and apply them to a study of Alzheimer's disease and recent findings of the Cross-Disorder Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. This study suggests that overinterpretation of very significant, but highly variable, P-values is an important factor contributing to the unexpectedly high incidence of non-replication. Formal prediction intervals can also provide realistic interpretations and comparisons of P-values associated with different estimated effect sizes and sample sizes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lazzeroni et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: