Statistical significance: p value, 0.05 threshold, and applications to radiomics—reasons for a conservative approach
Here, we summarise the unresolved debate about p value and its dichotomisation. We present the statement of the American Statistical Association against the misuse of statistical significance as well as the proposals to abandon the use of p value and to reduce the significance threshold from 0.05 to 0.005. We highlight reasons for a conservative approach, as clinical research needs dichotomic answers to guide decision-making, in particular in the case of diagnostic imaging and interventional rad
Record details
Published: 11 March 2020
Source: OpenAlex
Category: Research
Topics: Healthcare
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
Physician workforce in the United States of America: forecasting nationwide shortages
OpenAlex · 6 February 2020
Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: Summary of the Joint European and North American Multisociety Statement
OpenAlex · 1 October 2019
Neuroimaging Biomarkers for Alzheimer’s Disease
OpenAlex · 7 June 2019
Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Analysis of Public Attitudes on Facebook and Twitter Toward COVID-19 Vaccines in the United Kingdom and the United States: Observational Study
OpenAlex · 31 January 2021
Gut microbiota diversity across ethnicities in the United States
OpenAlex · 4 December 2018
Telehealth Interventions and Outcomes Across Rural Communities in the United States: Narrative Review
OpenAlex · 26 August 2021
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (11 March 2020), “Statistical significance: p value, 0.05 threshold, and applications to radiomics—reasons for a conservative approach,” evidence record 8801, https://ethics.ai/record/8801 (originally published by OpenAlex).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.