Closed shijiaSMH closed 5 months ago
Hi @loffleraSMH, I've discussed this w Surain today, so I wrote a summary about our thoughts/suggestions.
-It's an inferential statistics, usually used for hypothesis testing for more complex statistical testing. However, in table 1, our aim is to describe if different exposures may have different balance in characteristics. Thus, using p-value there may be an over-kill. -The more p-value tests we have, the higher the false positive rates. This may decrease accuracy of p-value results. -P-value is commonly mis-interrupted, eg. people tend to use 0.05 for everything and that is not necessarily scientific.
-It's usually used to describe if X characteristics is balanced across groups, which is in line with the purpose of having a descriptive table 1. -Potentially SMD is related to less misconception, since it's commonly used in clinical trials and people are used to this one type of interpretation.
From above, it's important to write clear documentation about when to use what if we decide to add p-value options.
Please use maximum pairwise SMD for demographics since our aim is to describe baseline characteristics for cohort. Also, this approach is consistent among GEMINI publications. If the goal is for inferential statistics, p-values are common options. Specifically, chi-squared test is used for categorical variables. For continuous variables, ANOVA test is used for variables that are normally distributed, and kruskal-wallis test us used for variables that are not normally distributed.
Thanks @shijiaSMH for this thorough review and implementation! This is a great example of how to extend the existing functionality.
I believe the goal of Rgemini
is to "standardize" our research and make common "analysis" easier to do.
I don't necessarily see an issue with exporting this but the question of whether to release this as part of the package is whether we see this being used "commonly" or if we want to "encourage" its use. Based on some of the discussion above this might be a point of contention. I think this is something that should probably be discussed with the larger group.
If not, as a niche use case, this could easily be a discussion board post too.
Looping in @loffleraSMH for thoughts.
Thanks @shijiaSMH and @vaakesan-SMH! Agree we should discuss this at research roundtable. Lots of things to consider here - thanks Jessica for the summary above, that's very helpful. I agree the decision comes down to whether we think this is a common approach we want to encourage people to use. If not, I like the idea of posting this on the discussion board.
Closing this issue since we decided to add this as a discussion post instead.
New Feature Request
Please describe in detail the functionality you would like to have added to the package. Describe inputs and outputs, and provide test examples if possible:
Please mention (if applicable), any research projects for which this functionality was needed:
If you have an idea about how the logic of this function should work, please write some pseudocode below to help the developer:
If you have already begun developing this function for your own use, please open a merge request with your in-progress code and link this issue to it.
Any suggested developers?
Any suggested reviewers?