Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yeah, the fact that 40% get them regardless makes the slight increases seem.. statistically irrelevant?



It turns out we in fact have tests to determine statistical significance - and the fact that this study was peer reviewed and published means the results were indeed statistically significant!

> We included 1,781 participants (mean age 74.9 ± 12.5 years, mean education 4.8 ± 4.0 years, 49.6% women, and 64.1% White). Compared with participants who never consumed alcohol, moderate (odds ratio [OR] 1.60, 95% CI 1.19–2.15, p = 0.001), heavy (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.50–3.63, p < 0.001), and former heavy (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.41–2.54, p < 0.001) alcohol consumptions were associated with hyaline arteriolosclerosis while only heavy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.10–2.30, p = 0.012) and former heavy (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.02–1.68, p = 0.029) alcohol consumptions were associated with neurofibrillary tangles. Former heavy drinking was associated with a lower brain mass ratio (β −4.45, 95% CI −8.55 to −0.35, p = 0.033) and worse cognitive abilities (β 1.31, 95% CI 0.54–2.09, p < 0.001). The association between impaired cognitive abilities and alcohol consumption was fully mediated by hyaline arteriolosclerosis (β 0.13, 95% CI 0.02–0.22, p = 0.012).


Being statistically significant is about how good your measurement is. (In one particular way.)

It's entirely unrelated to being practically significant.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: