Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Isn't Fig 1 shows the opposite?

Posted by zsong759 on 24 Jun 2019 at 07:25 GMT

Am I the only one to think that Fig 1 actually shows the oppsite conclusion?

The stat is significant due to larger sampling effect on sample B. After adjusting the sampling effect, we no longer have the false positive.

On the other word, if random sampling is inadmissible, what if I sequenced sample B twice. One time I got 50, 50, and the other time I got 5000, 5000. How should I interpret the totally differnt stat outcome if random sampling is not applied?

No competing interests declared.