When
you hear the word statistics, what is
the first thing that comes to mind? A coin that is flipped over and over
again? A die game that you seem to never win and always blame bad luck?
Perhaps built up frustration about logging into Prism and not being able to
figure out which graph you need to present your data?
Statistics
seems to start off easy. The professors get excited and they say, “Let’s start
with a coin!” And then they progress to “Oh! We can move to pretty, colored
marbles!” And by the end of it, you’re asking yourself what in the world this
has to do with the mice that are downstairs that have various treatments with
various time points to measure various readouts at.
Well
it all starts with coins and colored marbles. Our pretty bag of colored marbles
contains known distributions of
different colored marbles; therefore, it is a simple probability about which
one you will choose out of the bag at random. Now take your mouse experiment,
in which the distributions of the various responses are unknown. The bag of colored marbles is now all the mice in the world, but a typical experiment might have only
20 mice. How are you to determine that a response in a few of your 20 mice is
not just random, but indicative of a significant result?
According
to the central limit theorem, the larger our sampling, the more the
distribution of responses forms a normal distribution centered around a mean.
This is one large assumption that has many assumptions hidden within it. First,
we assume that we can measure a mean and standard deviation from our data. We
also must assume our sampling is completely random and independent. Further, we
assume that with increased sampling (more mice), the standard deviation of the
mean becomes smaller and smaller, allowing us to be more confident that the sample
mean we are measuring (our 20 or so mice) is nearing the population mean (all
the mice in the world). From the beginning, we are already assuming a lot.
From
there, it gets even a bit hairier. Based on the normal
distribution created from our sampling (after a few
assumptions), significance is then determined by comparing a preset
threshold of error to the probability of obtaining a particular result. If
the probability is fairly low for obtaining a result, then it is more likely to
pass below our error threshold and become significant. If it does not pass
below our error threshold, there is too much error involved with claiming its
significance and is more likely to have occurred by chance. It's important
to see here that our definition of significance depends upon error.
From
the outside looking in, statistics seems like a black box in which data go in
and significant results come out, but upon further analysis, we simply make
assumptions, sample populations and then infer. Although the premise is simple,
it is critical to remember that all our inferences about significance are based
on “unlikelihoods” that could have occurred by chance alone and consist of many
assumptions that might not have been met. A proper understanding of the
statistical analyses done to yield particular results is extremely important in
determining how confident we can be in those results.
This is very interesting! I couldn't agree more that we've had many assumptions before we do the statistical tests and infer. Also, our stats are based upon unlikelihood. Without understanding this, the bad stats occur as we've seen in the "BadStats Bounty", p-hacking, poor experimental design, improper use of t-test ect.. The point you made about the assumptions was really a good one. We should bear in mind that what we use in our lab setting may not even be good enough to represent or make indications to the larger population. Just as you mentioned, in a mouse model study, every student may only breed 20 mice or even less and we want to see the "statistical significance" drawn out of the box, which might be difficult if we consider all these assumptions we make before we do the statistical analysis. I wish we have more discussions about these assumptions in the class or elsewhere in the science field.
ReplyDelete