This PNAS paper could be the go-to example of how not to interpret statistics
Tweet Share Email Share Share FollowA few days ago, a science reporter asked me to evaluate a PNAS paper titled Gender differences in the structural connectome of the human brain. As it turns out, this paper is awful. On the positive side, it’s an excellent opportunity to highlight common mistakes in psychology/neuroscience and how to do it (more) properly. 1. Minute effect sizes do not allow for bold generalizations From abstract: In all supratentorial regions, males had greater within-hemispheric connectivity, as well as enhanced modularity and transitivity, whereas between-hemispheric connectivity and cross-module participation predominates in females. The paper generalizes it’s significant …