Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro

eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Editorial

Estimation Statistics, One Year Later

Christophe Bernard
eNeuro 1 April 2021, 8 (2) ENEURO.0091-21.2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0091-21.2021
Christophe Bernard
Roles: Editor-in-Chief
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Christophe Bernard
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Where are we now, 1 year after eNeuro launched an initiative to encourage the use of estimation statistics in neuroscience? We started to attract attention to estimation statistics in August 2019 with an editorial (Bernard, 2019) and opinion paper (Calin-Jageman and Cumming, 2019). In February 2020, I asked Reviewing Editors to identify papers that could benefit from converting to estimation statistics. One hundred were thus identified. And, overall in 2020, 52 published papers included estimation statistics in their analyses! One of the earliest papers to include estimation statistics was from my own laboratory because I was determined to be sure for myself that this was a feasible step to take.

So, thank you all for making this initiative a success. Using estimation statistics, in addition to the classical significance testing (and the p value), is not a constraint. The feedback we get from authors who did it is nothing but positive. The display of results is much clearer, and the effect sizes can be seen directly; the p value even becomes non-necessary in some instances. You may have noticed that we highlighted some of these papers throughout the past year, along with authors’ comments about their thoughts using estimation statistics; you can read their comments in a recent blog post (https://blog.eneuro.org/2021/02/discussion-est-stats-author-feedback).

Let us briefly recall what estimation statistics is and what its benefits are.

It is now clear for my own research that estimation statistics is more informative and more powerful to analyze and interpret my data. If I need to compare two conditions (e.g., the effect of a treatment on seizure frequency), I calculate the mean difference and the confidence interval. I can then estimate the effect size (basically, how far the mean difference is from the 0 value and how small is the confidence interval). There are three main advantages for presenting effect sizes. First, interpreting one’s data in terms of the precision and magnitude of an effect is more useful and more instructive. Your readers can see at once how justified your interpretation is. The metric is standardized and can be understood by all. Second, prior knowledge of effect sizes is important when designing a new study (e.g., for a power analysis). Third, effect sizes are particularly suited when multiple studies need to be compared (e.g., the efficiency of different COVID-19 vaccines).

With the reproducibility crisis, I became highly suspicious when reading in papers p < 0.05, n = 5 (note that in many papers, there is something magic with the n = 5 number of experiments to show something). Many papers have been published criticizing null hypothesis significance testing and the “dictatorship” of the p < 0.05 value; for example, see Singh Chawla (2017) and Gelman (2018). Many conclusions/interpretations published in top-tier journals were found to be overconfident because, despite a p value <0.05, there was no assurance of a meaningful and reproducible effect. The p value is nothing more than a probability, and the probability that there is no effect can be high. So, p can be <0.05 even if the study gives almost no information about the magnitude of the effect or how to try to replicate it. Perhaps, every new student in neuroscience should start watching the dance of the p values (https://youtu.be/5OL1RqHrZQ8) before doing any data analysis and interpretation. The video brilliantly shows how different samplings of two distributions can produce significant and nonsignificant results. You can explore the dance for yourself with an interactive tool on the New Statistics website (https://www.esci.thenewstatistics.com/esci-dances.html), which is great for teaching.

Overreliance on the p value can be blinding. You may have a p value <0.05, but your confidence in your interpretation can only be obtained when you report the effect size. In the same line, there is a tendency to say the lower the p value, the better. I always smile when I see what I call homeopathic p values reported in papers [i.e., p values lower than the maximum dilution (1/6 10−23), usually when you crunch big numbers].

However, it is important to keep in mind that estimation statistics and significance testing can complement each other. They provide different types of information. One just needs to know how to use these techniques and be aware of their limitations.

Using estimation statistics is straightforward and easy, which may explain why many of you started to use it in eNeuro. A good place to start is https://www.estimationstats.com/#/. There is a tutorial, and you can directly upload your datasets, and get the results and the figures. And it is free. There are also packages for R and for popular open-source statistical programs (https://thenewstatistics.com/itns/esci/jesci/).

Just have a go, and I am sure that you will be convinced by the power of this approach.

On this issue, my confidence interval is excellent and the effect size very large.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly attributed.

References

  1. ↵
    Bernard C (2019) Changing the way we report, interpret, and discuss our results to rebuild trust in our research. eNeuro 6:ENEURO.0259-19.2019. doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0259-19.2019
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    Calin-Jageman RJ, Cumming G (2019) Estimation for better inference in neuroscience. eNeuro 6:ENEURO.0205-19.2019. doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0205-19.2019
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    Gelman A (2018) The failure of null hypothesis significance testing when studying incremental changes, and what to do about it. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 44:16–23. doi:10.1177/0146167217729162 pmid:28914154
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Singh Chawla D (2017) Big names in statistics want to shake up much-maligned P value. Nature 548:16–17. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22375 pmid:28770857
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 8 (2)
eNeuro
Vol. 8, Issue 2
March/April 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Estimation Statistics, One Year Later
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Estimation Statistics, One Year Later
Christophe Bernard
eNeuro 1 April 2021, 8 (2) ENEURO.0091-21.2021; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0091-21.2021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Estimation Statistics, One Year Later
Christophe Bernard
eNeuro 1 April 2021, 8 (2) ENEURO.0091-21.2021; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0091-21.2021
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Stop Reproducing the Reproducibility Crisis
  • Everything You Always Wanted to Say about Science (But Were Afraid to Publish)
  • Doing Socially Responsible Science in the Age of Selfies and Immediacy
Show more Editorial

Subjects

  • Reporting Statistics
  • Editorials

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.