Sentence examples for multiple subgroup comparisons from inspiring English sources

Such tests for heterogeneity were nominally statistically significant, but only when not adjusted for the multiple subgroup comparisons.

Probability values were adjusted for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate (FDR) method [ 50].This method uses a controlled FDR while adjusting for testing simultaneously across multiple subgroup comparisons of sex and diet groups.

Another, potentially less appreciated, consequence of performing multiple underpowered subgroup comparisons is that readers can be misled into believing that these negative results provide reliable evidence that the treatment is similarly effective in all patients, potentially masking important subgroup effects owing to inadequate power.

Since there are usually multiple variables that merit subgroup comparisons, the risk of false positive findings due to multiple comparisons compounds the risk of false negative findings due to low statistical power.

For subgroup comparisons, Dunn's Multiple Comparisons test was used.

Furthermore, carrying out numerous subgroup comparisons leads to the multiple testing problem.

*Positive predictive values=probability that all reported positives analyses are true positives for a trial reporting at least one positive subgroup effect (that is, no false positives) for a given prior probability and power in the context of conducting one, five, or 10 subgroup comparisons without adjustment for multiple comparisons, assuming α=5% (0.05).

In rare scenarios where there is excellent subgroup power, positive results can be highly reliable, but even in this ideal situation the positive predictive value drops precipitously when prior probability drops below 20%to30%0% or when multiple subgroup analyses are performed without adjusting for multiple comparisons.

Additional diagnostic subgroup comparisons of FNS patients with multiple (ICD code F44.7) or single symptom domains (ICD code F44.4 or F44.6) were analyzed for ACE, LE, the emotion processing measures and the intensity of psychological strain.

The level of significance for subgroup comparisons was set to P<01 without any corrections for multiple testing.

In multiple subgroup analyses both more false negative results, due to the smaller size of the groups, and more false positive results, due to multiple comparisons, are expected.