Let’s find the
subgroup analysis that looks somewhat significant! Hmm this one inhibitor in
one situation looks really promising… To think of it, we didn’t cover the
ethics or practice of leaving out data and focusing only on the positive
results?
There
are two conflicting forces at play whenever I begin to make figures: the need
to explicitly and accurately convey technical information, and the desire to have
visual cohesion and minimalism. This wasn’t a problem for the Mod1 report;
although we performed various analyses using existing programs, they already
looked visually acceptable and clear.
And
then we learned about statistics. The guest lecture by Shannon was quite
illuminating; I had been using t-tests and ANOVA p-values without precisely
knowing how each value was calculated, and I learned a lot in this lecture. However,
now there is no pretending like we don’t know how to calculate 95% significance
from our data. The inclusion of these confidence intervals led to many of us
experiencing the discomfort of having error
bars that are larger than the sample space (Ie: 5 +/- 10).
This
was of course an element in my figures that I didn’t find necessarily
beautiful, so I tried several ways of pooling the data together such that it
would be optimal in both conflict realms. It was good in some respects, in that it did
generate results acceptable of reporting, but it also led to me agonizing over
what were the best ways to represent data over multiple variables. In the end, I’ve
learned that aesthetics and comprehensive accuracy in figures are not a
dichotomy, and you can have both with experience, and of course, more samples.
Significance
is a funny thing; it is both definitively objective (p < 0.05) and entirely
relative (I’ve learned a significant amount from this class!).
Should
I represent it all on one graph? Or four different sub graphs? Or maybe just compare
xrs6 to…
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.