Power failure¶
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Type M Error
- The two questions give divergent answers when power is low, which is the regime that characterizes a substantial fraction of published empirical work in psychology, biomedicine, and the social sciences
This sourceVery low median statistical power across neuroscience studies, with overestimated effect sizes and low reproducibility as consequences. Estimates from neuroscience meta-analyses putting the median statistical power of neuroscience studies between about 8% and 31%.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- The two questions give divergent answers when power is low, which is the regime that characterizes a substantial fraction of published empirical work in psychology, biomedicine, and the social sciences
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:a96c128f433e · see in the full table