Author
Abstract
Background: Reproducibility crisis is among major concerns of many scientists worldwide. Some researchers believe that the crisis is mostly attributed to the conventional p significance threshold value arbitrarily chosen to be 0.05 and propose to lower the cut-off to 0.005. Reducing the cut-off, although decreases the false-positive rate, is associated with an increase in false-negative rate. Recently, a flexible p significance threshold that minimizes the weighted sum of errors in statistical inference tests of hypothesis was proposed. Methods: The current in silico study was conducted to compare the error rates under different conditions assumed for the p significance threshold—0.05, 0.005, and a flexible threshold. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, the false-positive rate (when the null hypothesis was true) and false-negative rate (when the alternative hypothesis was true) were calculated in a hypothetical randomized clinical trial. Results: Increasing the study sample size was associated with a reduction in the false-negative rate, however, the false-positive rate occurred at a fixed value regardless of the sample size when fixed significance thresholds were used; the rate decreased, however, when the flexible threshold was employed. While employing the flexible threshold abolished the reproducibility crisis to a large extent, the method uncovered an inherent conflict in the frequentist statistical inference framework. Calculation of the flexible p significance threshold is only possible a posteriori, after the results are obtained. The threshold would thus be different even for replicas, which is in contradiction to the common sense. Conclusions: It seems that relying on frequentist statistical inference and the p value is no longer a viable approach. Emphasis should be shifted toward alternative approaches for data analysis, Bayesian statistical methods, for example.
Suggested Citation
Farrokh Habibzadeh, 2025.
"On the effect of flexible adjustment of the p value significance threshold on the reproducibility of randomized clinical trials,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(6), pages 1-13, June.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0325920
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325920
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0325920. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.