It should be noted that when the effect size is zero (Fig. 3), there is no difference between the two simulated groups and so the proportion of p values deemed "significant" will represent false positives––that is, in a robust and reliable significance test, on average 5% of results ought to be declared "significant, p < 0.05".
Comparatively, because the mean number of crosses for families with a cross is approximately 17 (data not shown), this translates into about a 3% significance level on average per family, even α = 0.5 still appears slightly more stringent than the criteria used by Gao et al. (2011).
If one conducts 100 independent tests at the 5% significance level, one is expected on average to reject falsely the null hypothesis by chance in 5 tests.
Economists may not be able to show that democracy contributes to growth, but the same research cannot demonstrate, with any statistical significance, that authoritarian governments on average produce faster growth, either.
Although the choice of a 5%% significance level will generate on average 2734 false positives when 54675 PS are analysed (as in this study), it can at times still be counter-intuitive for toxicologists when none of the more than 2000 identified genes is significant after FDR correction.
I also observe significant, yet small effects on average weekly hours at 5%% significance level during the implementation years.
The effect of the noise on the data may also be observed on the differences between the pathway significance thresholds set through permutations, where the distance 0 analysis sets on average a pathway significance threshold of ∼0.02 0.03, and the distance 20 kb, ∼0.008 0.02.
In addition, the combined effects of load and distance indicate the highest significance on volume loss and average COF for both UHMWPE hybrid composites as compared to other variable interactions.
On average, the 0.05 significance level was LOD 2.75 across all traits, which was then used as the threshold for declaring a significant QTL.
