Attending to Another Kind of Statistical Error ——Some Biases in Experimental Analyses

Qian Xueya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-4565.2005.03.013

2005-01-01

Abstract:This paper discuss on errors disappearing in some empirical researches,such as defining error of index concept,mistiness of index calculating,etc. Some suggestions are put forward to govemmental statistical departments as well as researchers.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Two-step method for gross error detection in process data

JiaYan Chen,Zhangwei Chen,Hongye Su,Jian Chu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2001.946060

2001-01-01

Abstract:Three types of gross errors-measurement biases, process leaks, and abnormal variances-are discussed. A new class of test statistics for gross error detection, called the two-step method, is proposed. This method consists of two steps. The first step is to detect and eliminate the abnormal variances in measured variables. The second step is to detect measurement biases and process leaks. In the second step, a mean-value transformation is introduced to improve the performance of gross error detection. Simulations are performed, and the two-step method is compared to the existing test statistics. It is shown that the new tests have a superior overall performance, and can detect all three types of gross errors discussed in this paper, even gross errors of small magnitudes. Also, the two-step method can easily distinguish measurement biases and process leaks from abnormal variances
Forthcoming Papers

Lihong Wang,Gaowen Wang,Weijie Mao,Jiti Gao,Degui Li,Zhengyan Lin,Danh V. Nguyen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842x.2008.00511.x

2008-01-01

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics

Abstract:Lihong Wang: Change-point detection with rank statistics in long memory time series models Ismihan Bairamov & Serkan Eryilmaz: Joint behaviour of precedences and exceedances in random threshold models Gaowen Wang & Wei-Lin Mao: Unit root testing in the presence of heavy-tailed GARCH errors D.G. Butler, J.A. Eccleston & B.R. Cullis: On an approximate optimality criterion for the design of field experiments under spatial dependence Kasper K. Berthelsen & Jesper Møller: Non-parametric Bayesian inference for inhomogeneous Markov point processes. Hua Liang & Yongsong Qin: Empirical likelihood-based inferences for partially linear models with missing covariates Chris J. Lloyd: Exact P-values for discrete models obtained by estimation and maximisation Housila. P. Singh & Sunil Kumar: A regression approach to the estimation of the finite population mean in the presence of non-response Deyuan Li: On the probability of being maximal Natalia Stepanova & Shu Wang: Asymptotic efficiency of the Blest-type tests for independence M.A. Hidiroglou, J.N.K. Rao & David Haziza: Variance estimation in two-phase sampling Scott D. Foster, Arūnas P. Verbyla & Wayne S. Pitchford: Estimation, prediction and inference for the LASSO random effects model Rob Salmond: Weekday-only polling and partisan support levels: evidence from New Zealand Mariusz Bieniek: A note on characterizations of distributions by regressions of non-adjacent generalized order statistics Alec G. Stephenson: High-dimensional parametric modeling of multivariate extreme events Yan Wang & Joanne Thandrayen: Multiple-record systems estimation using latent class models Paul Kabaila & Jarrod Tuck: Confidence intervals utilizing prior information in the Behrens-Fisher problem Kais Hamza: An exact test for hazard-similarity Jiti Gao, Degui Li & Zhengyan Lin: Robust estimation in parametric time series models under long and short range dependent structures Pu Chen & Chih-Ying Hsiao: Subsampling the Johansen test with stable innovations C.A. McGrory & D.M. Titterington: Variational Bayesian Analysis for Hidden Markov Models Hiep Duc, Bin Jalaludin & Geoff Morgan: Associations between air pollution and daily emergency department visits for cardiovascular diseases in the elderly (65+ years) in Sydney using Bayesian statistical methods Jeremy Penzer, Minjing Wang & Qiwei Yao: Approximating Volatilities by Asymmetric Power GARCH Functions J.C.W. Rayner, O. Thas & B. De Boeck: A generalized Emerson recurrence relation Samuel Müller & Céline Vial: Partially linear model selection by the bootstrap Suzanne Dubnicka: Kernel density estimation with missing data and auxiliary variables Xingzhong Xu, Xiaobo Ding & Shuran Zhao: A new confidence band for continuous distribution functions Paul Kabaila & Khageswor Giri: Upper bounds on the minimum coverage probability of confidence intervals in regression after model selection E.J. Beh & T.B. Farver: An evaluation of non-iterative methods for estimating the linear-by-linear parameter of ordinal log-linear models Danh V. Nguyen & Damla Şentürk: Covariate-adjusted regression for longitudinal data incorporating correlation between repeated measurements Ross Sparks: Two pass CUSUM for identifying age cluster outbreaks
Errors of Data in Empirical Econometric Research

QIAN Xue-ya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-1505.2007.01.012

2007-01-01

Abstract:Econometrics method,widely applied in every domain in economic research,possesses three basic factors: theory,methodology and data.In the review of a great amount of domestic economic research findings,we can find out many unscientific points in them.This paper lists three kinds of errors of data in the empirical econometric research in order to advocate the objectivity in economic analyses.
Common mistakes in biostatistics

Graziella D'Arrigo,Samar Abd El Hafeez,Sabrina Mezzatesta,Domenico Abelardo,Fabio Pasquale Provenzano,Antonio Vilasi,Claudia Torino,Giovanni Tripepi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfae197

2024-06-26

Clinical Kidney Journal

Abstract:ABSTRACT Biostatistics plays a pivotal role in developing, interpreting and drawing conclusions from clinical, biological and epidemiological data. However, the improper application of statistical methods can lead to erroneous conclusions and misinterpretations. This paper provides a comprehensive examination of the most frequent mistakes encountered in the biostatistical analysis process. We identified and elucidated 10 common errors in biostatistical analysis. These include using the wrong metric to describe data, misinterpreting P-values, misinterpreting the 95% confidence interval, misinterpreting the hazard ratio as an index of prognostic accuracy, ignoring the sample size calculation, misinterpreting analysis by strata in randomized clinical trials, confusing correlation and causation, misunderstanding confounders and mediators, inadequately codifying variables during the data collection, and bias arising when group membership is attributed on the basis of future exposure in retrospective studies. We discuss the implications of these errors and propose some practical strategies to mitigate their impact. By raising awareness of these pitfalls, this paper aims to enhance the rigor and reproducibility of biostatistical analyses, thereby fostering more robust and reliable biomedical research findings.

urology & nephrology
Common Statistical Errors in Scientific Investigations: A Simple Guide to Avoid Unfounded Decisions

Alessandro Rovetta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.33351

2023-01-04

Cureus

Abstract:During my experience as an author, peer reviewer, and editor during COVID-19, I have encountered - and committed - various errors related to the interpretation and use of statistical measures and tests. Primarily concerning health sciences such as epidemiology, infodemiology, and public health, the evidence used to inform a conclusion carries an extremely high weight as it translates into decisions made to preserve the population's well-being. Therefore, the aforementioned evidence must be reliable. This short guide discusses the most common and dangerous mistakes I have experienced during my scientific journey. Real and invented examples have been proposed and analyzed in detail, showing possible interpretations, both correct and incorrect, and their consequences. Such a framework makes it clear that a statistical test alone cannot answer any scientific questions. Indeed, the interpretation of results and the verification of assumptions and test eligibility - subject to the author's evaluation - are crucial components of the integrity of the scientific investigation. Before using a test or adopting a measure, we must ask ourselves the following fundamental questions: Are there valid reasons to explore my research question? Am I sure my approach can fully and adequately answer my research question? Am I sure that my model's assumptions - basic and hidden - are sufficiently satisfied? How could violating those assumptions affect the validity of the results and stakeholders? Is the effect size relevant regardless of statistical significance?
Do Regional Economic Gaps Result from FDI?——The Forming of Secondary Statistical Error

Qian Xueya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-4565.2007.03.015

2007-01-01

Abstract:The paper compares two studies on FDI and regional gap of economic development. It analyzes the secondary error possibly formed during experimental researches through the comparative research. The author suggests that attentions should be attached to objectivism and scientificity of experimental research in respect of choosing variables, model establishing and data application.
Correcting Classifiers for Sample Selection Bias in Two-Phase Case-Control Studies

Norbert Krautenbacher,Fabian J. Theis,Christiane Fuchs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7847531

IF: 2.809

2017-01-01

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

Abstract:Epidemiological studies often utilize stratified data in which rare outcomes or exposures are artificially enriched. This design can increase precision in association tests but distorts predictions when applying classifiers on nonstratified data. Several methods correct for this so-called sample selection bias, but their performance remains unclear especially for machine learning classifiers. With an emphasis on two-phase case-control studies, we aim to assess which corrections to perform in which setting and to obtain methods suitable for machine learning techniques, especially the randomforest. We propose two newresampling-basedmethods to resemble the original data and covariance structure: stochastic inverse-probability oversampling and parametric inverse-probability bagging. We compare all techniques for the random forest and other classifiers, both theoretically and on simulated and real data. Empirical results show that the random forest profits from only the parametric inverse-probability bagging proposed by us. For other classifiers, correction is mostly advantageous, and methods perform uniformly. We discuss consequences of inappropriate distribution assumptions and reason for different behaviors between the random forest and other classifiers. In conclusion, we provide guidance for choosing correction methods when training classifiers on biased samples. For random forests, our method outperforms state-of-the-art procedures if distribution assumptions are roughly fulfilled. We provide our implementation in the R package sambia.
Improving the Output Quality of Official Statistics Based on Machine Learning Algorithms

Q.A. Meertens,C.G.H. Diks,H.J. van den Herik,F.W. Takes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2022-0023

2022-06-01

Journal of Official Statistics

Abstract:Abstract National statistical institutes currently investigate how to improve the output quality of official statistics based on machine learning algorithms. A key issue is concept drift, that is, when the joint distribution of independent variables and a dependent (categorical) variable changes over time. Under concept drift, a statistical model requires regular updating to prevent it from becoming biased. However, updating a model asks for additional data, which are not always available. An alternative is to reduce the bias by means of bias correction methods. In the article, we focus on estimating the proportion (base rate) of a category of interest and we compare two popular bias correction methods: the misclassification estimator and the calibration estimator. For prior probability shift (a specific type of concept drift), we investigate the two methods analytically as well as numerically. Our analytical results are expressions for the bias and variance of both methods. As numerical result, we present a decision boundary for the relative performance of the two methods. Our results provide a better understanding of the effect of prior probability shift on output quality. Consequently, we may recommend a novel approach on how to use machine learning algorithms in the context of official statistics.

statistics & probability,social sciences, mathematical methods
Sample error in housing price statistics and its adjustments

Wu Jing,Zheng Siqi,Liu Hongyu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-131X.2009.04.020

2009-01-01

Abstract:Price is a key indicator in housing market, and sample error is a major problem in housing price statistics. This paper analyzes the causes and effects of sample error in housing price statistics in China, and establishes four possible adjustment methods, namely, the appraisal method, the fixed-weight method, the cross-sectional hedonic method and the pooled hedonic method. Then the validity and feasibility of these methods are compared empirically by taking a simulated housing price index in Beijing as an example. The results suggest that the sample error, especially its random error component, significantly affects the accuracy of housing price indicator in China at present, and the pooled hedonic method is the most applicable and efficient method for error adjustment.
Epidemiologic analyses with error-prone exposures: Review of current practice and recommendations

Pamela A. Shaw,Veronika Deffner,Ruth H. Keogh,Janet A. Tooze,Kevin W. Dodd,Helmut Küchenhoff,Victor Kipnis,Laurence S. Freedman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.09.001

2018-03-01

Abstract:Background: Variables in epidemiological observational studies are commonly subject to measurement error and misclassification, but the impact of such errors is frequently not appreciated or ignored. As part of the STRengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies (STRATOS) Initiative, a Task Group on measurement error and misclassification (TG4) seeks to describe the scope of this problem and the analysis methods currently in use to address measurement error. Methods: TG4 conducted a literature survey of four types of research studies that are typically impacted by exposure measurement error: 1) dietary intake cohort studies, 2) dietary intake population surveys, 3) physical activity cohort studies, and 4) air pollution cohort studies. The survey was conducted to understand current practice for acknowledging and addressing measurement error. Results: The survey revealed that while researchers were generally aware that measurement error affected their studies, very few adjusted their analysis for the error. Most articles provided incomplete discussion of the potential effects of measurement error on their results. Regression calibration was the most widely used method of adjustment. Conclusions: Even in areas of epidemiology where measurement error is a known problem, the dominant current practice is to ignore errors in analyses. Methods to correct for measurement error are available but require additional data to inform the error structure. There is a great need to incorporate such data collection within study designs and improve the analytical approach. Increased efforts by investigators, editors and reviewers are also needed to improve presentation of research when data are subject to error.

Applications
Several Issues of Statistical Analysis in Clinical Research

Zhai Wenwen,Li Min,Li Nan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1672-9633.2017.06.017

2017-01-01

Abstract:The improper statistical analysis of data is common in domestic medical journals.The aim of this review is to discuss some common errors relating to statistical analysis in clinical research,including the sample size calculation,the assessment of the rank sum test,the application of the repeated measurement of variance analysis,the Bland-Altman plot used in agreement analysis,and the proper expression of data.
Interpretational errors in statistical causal inference

Aaron L. Sarvet,Mats J. Stensrud,Lan Wen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.07610

2023-12-11

Methodology

Abstract:We formalize an interpretational error that is common in statistical causal inference, termed identity slippage. This formalism is used to describe historically-recognized fallacies, and analyse a fast-growing literature in statistics and applied fields. We conducted a systematic review of natural language claims in the literature on stochastic mediation parameters, and documented extensive evidence of identity slippage in applications. This framework for error detection is applicable whenever policy decisions depend on the accurate interpretation of statistical results, which is nearly always the case. Therefore, broad awareness of identity slippage will aid statisticians in the successful translation of data into public good.
The basic statistical concepts and their interrelationships in diagnostic research

Yitao Mao,Juxiong Xiao,Liping Zhu,Yu Zhang,Yueshuang Leng,Qingling Li,Ying Li,Chuyi Liu,Luqing Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/postmj/qgae139

2024-10-23

Abstract:Background: Many medical postgraduate students exhibit a lack of clarity in their understanding of relevant statistical concepts during the conduct of diagnostic studies. Methods: This article, grounded in research practice, delves into the role of understanding statistical concepts in diagnostic research. It includes an exploration of sensitivity, specificity, types of statistical errors, and their interrelationships, as well as a discussion on statistical power-an often-overlooked but crucial concept in research. Results: The article elucidates these important concepts with specific examples and illustrations, and addresses an issue of inconsistency related to the receiver operating characteristic curve in research practice. Conclusion: By drawing analogies between basic concepts in diagnostic tests and concepts in statistics, this article helps to enhance researchers' abilities in designing and interpreting clinical diagnostic studies, thereby improving the quality of clinical diagnostic research.
Flexible Techniques to Detect Typical Hidden Errors in Large Longitudinal Datasets

Renato Bruni,Cinzia Daraio,Simone Di Leo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16050529

2024-04-29

Symmetry

Abstract:The increasing availability of longitudinal data (repeated numerical observations of the same units at different times) requires the development of flexible techniques to automatically detect errors in such data. Besides standard types of errors, which can be treated with generic error correction techniques, large longitudinal datasets may present specific problems not easily traceable by the generic techniques. In particular, after applying those generic techniques, time series in the data may contain trends, natural fluctuations and possible surviving errors. To study the data evolution, one main issue is distinguishing those elusive errors from the rest, which should be kept as they are and not flattened or altered. This work responds to this need by identifying some types of elusive errors and by proposing a statistical-mathematical approach to capture their complexity that can be applied after the above generic techniques. The proposed approach is based on a system of indicators and works at the formal level by studying the differences between consecutive values of data series and the symmetries and asymmetries of these differences. It operates regardless of the specific meaning of the data and is thus applicable in a variety of contexts. We implement this approach in a relevant database of European Higher Education institutions (ETER) by analyzing two key variables: "Total academic staff" and "Total number of enrolled students", which are two of the most important variables, often used in empirical analysis as a proxy for size, and are considered by policymakers at the European level. The results are very promising.

multidisciplinary sciences
On Detecting Systematic Measurement Error in Cross-Cultural Research: A Review and Critical Reflection on Equivalence and Invariance Tests

Diana Boer,Katja Hanke,Jia He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117749042

2018-05-21

Abstract:One major threat to revealing cultural influences on psychological states or processes is the presence of bias (i.e., systematic measurement error). When quantitative measures are not targeting the same construct or they differ in metric across cultures, the validity of inferences about cultural variability (and universality) is in doubt. The objectives of this article are to review what can be done about it and what is being done about it. To date, a multitude of useful techniques and methods to reduce or assess bias in cross-cultural research have been developed. We explore the limits of invariance/equivalence testing and suggest more flexible means of dealing with bias. First, we review currently available established and novel methods that reveal bias in cross-cultural research. Second, we analyze current practices in a systematic content analysis. The content analysis of more than 500 culture-comparative quantitative studies (published from 2008 to 2015 in three outlets in cross-cultural, social, and developmental psychology) aims to gauge current practices and approaches in the assessment of measurement equivalence/invariance. Surprisingly, the analysis revealed a rather low penetration of invariance testing in cross-cultural research. Although a multitude of classical and novel approaches for invariance testing is available, these are employed infrequent rather than habitual. We discuss reasons for this hesitation, and we derive suggestions for creatively assessing and handling biases across different research paradigms and designs.

psychology, social
Research Design and Statistical Methods in Chinese Medical Journals

Qian Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.283

IF: 11.816

1998-07-15

JAMA

Abstract:CONTEXT: Study design and statistical analyses have improved in journals published in Western countries, but the type of research designs and statistical methods used in medical journals outside Western countries has not been assessed.OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of research designs and statistical techniques used in Chinese medical journals, types of statistical errors present, and trends over a 10-year period.DESIGN: Evaluation of all original articles published in 5 leading journals in 1985 (N = 640) and in 1995 (N = 954).MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Research designs and statistical methods.RESULTS: Compared with 1985, significant improvement was seen in 1995; the percentages of original articles reporting clinical trials, prospective studies, or basic science research increased from 18% to 31% (P<.001), the proportion of papers using statistical tests increased from 40% to 60% (P<.001), more sophisticated statistical methods were used, and of those articles using statistics, the proportion using appropriate methods increased from 22% to 46% (P<.001). In both years, the most commonly used statistical methods were t tests and contingency tables. The most common errors were presentation of P values without specifying the test used, use of multiple t tests instead of analysis of variance, and use of unpaired t tests when paired tests were required.CONCLUSIONS: The use of statistical methods in Chinese medical journals research is improving, and by 1995, the frequency of using statistical methods in published articles was similar to the results determined in previous studies of journals. However, the lack of or inappropriate use of statistics remains a serious problem.

medicine, general & internal
Addressing Common Misuses and Pitfalls of P values in Biomedical Research

Ming Wang,Qi Long

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-21-2978

IF: 11.2

2022-08-04

Cancer Research

Abstract:In recent years, there has been a growing recognition that P values, albeit useful in reporting data analysis results, have often been misused or misinterpreted in biomedical research. The emergence of big health data such as genomics data and electronic health records, sometimes combined with inadequate experimental design, has exacerbated this problem, which has become a major cause of the ongoing crisis in reproducibility in biomedical research. We aim to shed light and raise awareness of common misuses and pitfalls of P values and discuss potential mitigation strategies that leverage state-of-the-art statistical methods. The best practices always start with a sound study design including a robust data collection strategy to minimize data bias and a carefully thought-out analysis plan that can address potential misuses and pitfalls of P values. We highly encourage biomedical researchers to engage and involve statisticians from the very beginning of their studies.

oncology
Error Analysis of Measurement Uncertainty: a Snapshot Literature Review in Field of Medicine and Health in China

Manqing Nie,Jing Chen,Bo Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-023-01549-8

2023-01-01

Accreditation and Quality Assurance

Abstract:To analyze and statistically compare common errors in the evaluation of measurement uncertainty in medicine and health field, using literature research and comparison with national standards, in order to understand the current status of measurement uncertainty evaluation in the medicine and health field. Using Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) as the sample population, Stratified Proportional Sampling (PPS) was used to extract journal articles related to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health. The articles were compared with the Eurachem/CITAC Guide QUAM to analyze measurement uncertainty errors. Academic attention to measurement uncertainty in the field of medicine and health in the CNKI literature database has shown explosive growth since 2005. Seven common errors in measurement uncertainty evaluation were identified. None of the 30 journal articles analyzed were error-free, with a total error rate of 44 %. The error rate for ignorance of blank uncertainty was 87 %, improper evaluation of standard curve was 67 %, improper significant figures were 60 %, and insufficient information for Type B evaluation was 50 %. The error rate for provincial and higher-level institutions was 48 %, while the error rate for institutions below the provincial level was 43 %. The difference between the two error rates was not statistically significant ( p = 0.523). There is an urgent need to improve the rationality of measurement uncertainty evaluation in medicine and health field, and to strengthen the education and academic communication through national and international cooperation. Graphical abstract
The Prevalence of Errors in Machine Learning Experiments

Martin Shepperd,Yuchen Guo,Ning Li,Mahir Arzoky,Andrea Capiluppi,Steve Counsell,Giuseppe Destefanis,Stephen Swift,Allan Tucker,Leila Yousefi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33607-3_12

2019-01-01

Abstract:Context: Conducting experiments is central to research machine learning research to benchmark, evaluate and compare learning algorithms. Consequently it is important we conduct reliable, trustworthy experiments.
Classical Statistical (In-Sample) Intuitions Don't Generalize Well: A Note on Bias-Variance Tradeoffs, Overfitting and Moving from Fixed to Random Designs

Alicia Curth

2024-09-27

Abstract:The sudden appearance of modern machine learning (ML) phenomena like double descent and benign overfitting may leave many classically trained statisticians feeling uneasy -- these phenomena appear to go against the very core of statistical intuitions conveyed in any introductory class on learning from data. The historical lack of earlier observation of such phenomena is usually attributed to today's reliance on more complex ML methods, overparameterization, interpolation and/or higher data dimensionality. In this note, we show that there is another reason why we observe behaviors today that appear at odds with intuitions taught in classical statistics textbooks, which is much simpler to understand yet rarely discussed explicitly. In particular, many intuitions originate in fixed design settings, in which in-sample prediction error (under resampling of noisy outcomes) is of interest, while modern ML evaluates its predictions in terms of generalization error, i.e. out-of-sample prediction error in random designs. Here, we highlight that this simple move from fixed to random designs has (perhaps surprisingly) far-reaching consequences on textbook intuitions relating to the bias-variance tradeoff, and comment on the resulting (im)possibility of observing double descent and benign overfitting in fixed versus random designs.

Machine Learning

Attending to Another Kind of Statistical Error ——Some Biases in Experimental Analyses

Two-step method for gross error detection in process data

Forthcoming Papers

Errors of Data in Empirical Econometric Research

Common mistakes in biostatistics

Common Statistical Errors in Scientific Investigations: A Simple Guide to Avoid Unfounded Decisions

Do Regional Economic Gaps Result from FDI?——The Forming of Secondary Statistical Error

Correcting Classifiers for Sample Selection Bias in Two-Phase Case-Control Studies

Improving the Output Quality of Official Statistics Based on Machine Learning Algorithms

Sample error in housing price statistics and its adjustments

Epidemiologic analyses with error-prone exposures: Review of current practice and recommendations

Several Issues of Statistical Analysis in Clinical Research

Interpretational errors in statistical causal inference

The basic statistical concepts and their interrelationships in diagnostic research

Flexible Techniques to Detect Typical Hidden Errors in Large Longitudinal Datasets

On Detecting Systematic Measurement Error in Cross-Cultural Research: A Review and Critical Reflection on Equivalence and Invariance Tests

Research Design and Statistical Methods in Chinese Medical Journals

Addressing Common Misuses and Pitfalls of P values in Biomedical Research

Error Analysis of Measurement Uncertainty: a Snapshot Literature Review in Field of Medicine and Health in China

The Prevalence of Errors in Machine Learning Experiments

Classical Statistical (In-Sample) Intuitions Don't Generalize Well: A Note on Bias-Variance Tradeoffs, Overfitting and Moving from Fixed to Random Designs