

Statistical Flaw Punctuates Brain Research in Elite Journals - tokenadult
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/2014/03/27/statistical-flaw-punctuates-brain-research-in-elite-journals/

======
yamad
The problem mentioned--mistreating "nested data" by assuming independence
between observations that may actually be linked--is definitely a real one and
it's important to bring up, but I don't think it's as severe as suggested
here.

How did the authors come up with their numbers on which papers had nested
designs? I would argue that nested data is on a continuum and it's a matter of
judgment and interpretation what to call a singular "research object".

If you are studying a single protein molecule, when can you start assuming
independence? Protein molecules in the same subcellular compartment? same
cell? same cluster of cells? same organ section? same animal? same litter?
same species? same animal tech at the animal supply company? same experimental
session? same solution stock?

It's not obvious where to draw the line. As long as authors are clear and
honest about where they decided to draw that line in their analysis, I can
assess whether I want to put stock in their conclusions.

