Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Nov 21;77(11):2155-2164.
doi: 10.1093/gerona/glab382.

From Model Organisms to Humans, the Opportunity for More Rigor in Methodologic and Statistical Analysis, Design, and Interpretation of Aging and Senescence Research

Daniella E Chusyd  1 , Steven N Austad  2   3 , Andrew W Brown  4 , Xiwei Chen  1 , Stephanie L Dickinson  1 , Keisuke Ejima  1 , David Fluharty  1   5 , Lilian Golzarri-Arroyo  1 , Richard Holden  6 , Yasaman Jamshidi-Naeini  1 , Doug Landsittel  1 , Stella Lartey  1 , Edward Mannix  7 , Colby J Vorland  4 , David B Allison  1
Affiliations
Review

From Model Organisms to Humans, the Opportunity for More Rigor in Methodologic and Statistical Analysis, Design, and Interpretation of Aging and Senescence Research

Daniella E Chusyd et al. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. .

Abstract

This review identifies frequent design and analysis errors in aging and senescence research and discusses best practices in study design, statistical methods, analyses, and interpretation. Recommendations are offered for how to avoid these problems. The following issues are addressed: (a) errors in randomization, (b) errors related to testing within-group instead of between-group differences, (c) failing to account for clustering, (d) failing to consider interference effects, (e) standardizing metrics of effect size, (f) maximum life-span testing, (g) testing for effects beyond the mean, (h) tests for power and sample size, (i) compression of morbidity versus survival curve squaring, and (j) other hot topics, including modeling high-dimensional data and complex relationships and assessing model assumptions and biases. We hope that bringing increased awareness of these topics to the scientific community will emphasize the importance of employing sound statistical practices in all aspects of aging and senescence research.

Keywords: Geroscience; Methodologies; Reproducibility.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Two examples of the differences in nominal significance (DINS) error. The DINS error occurs when the nominal significance (eg, if a result is called “statistically significant” by meeting a threshold like p < .05) of 2 different results is compared, rather than a direct between-group comparison. (A) The change in outcome during Treatment A is marked as statistically significantly greater than 0 (demarked with an asterisk), while the change during Treatment B is not statistically significantly different from 0. A DINS error would occur if authors concluded Treatment A worked better than Treatment B, when there is no compelling difference between the 2 groups, if they were compared directly. (B) The regression lines for 2 different groups (eg, different sexes) as a function of an exposure are nearly identical, with the dashed line having a slope significantly different from 0 and the solid line having a slope not significantly different from 0. If authors concluded these 2 regression lines were different based on statistical significance (eg, that there was a sex difference in the exposure–outcome relationship), they would be committing a DINS error, as the lines are not statistically different from each other if compared directly.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am Stat. 2016;70:129–133. doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 - DOI
    1. Wang C, Keith SW, Fontaine KR, Allison DB. Statistical issues for longevity studies in animal models. In: Conn MP, ed. Handbook of Models for Human Aging. Elsevier Academic Press; 2006:153–164. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-369391-4.X5000-0 - DOI
    1. Belsky DW, Caspi A, Houts R, et al. . Quantification of biological aging in young adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(30):E4104–E4110. doi:10.1073/pnas.1506264112 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ghisletta P, Aichele S. Quantitative methods in psychological aging research: a mini-review. Gerontology. 2017;63(6):529–537. doi:10.1159/000477582 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bland JM. Evidence for an ‘anti-ageing’ product may not be so clear as it appears. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(5):1207–1208; author reply 1208. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09433.x - DOI - PubMed

Publication types