On 17 Oct 2003 06:05:19 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Enda Kelly) wrote: [ snip, discussion ]
> This was done for a number of pairs of loci. To illustrate what I meant > by "narrow" and "enormous", here are some examples with the p-value, the > median of the bootstrap values and the upper and lower limits of 95% CI: > > Locus pair P-value Median Lower Upper > 1 0.002414 0.002422 0.000055 0.037401 In terms of ratio: Big. These are enormous, Median/Lower and Upper/Median. > 2 0.971621 0.512296 0.181935 0.850761 ? In terms of sanity, or a dysfunctional program: Is this a typographical error, or is the point-estimate outside of CI? > 3 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 > 4 0.018936 0.016100 0.001082 0.193285 Ratios are again more than 10-fold, for size of p. > 5 0.832001 0.505662 0.173286 0.857703 ? Point estimate is within the CI, but not by much. > > Judging by the comments on the relationship between p-values and > confidence intervals, I have a suspicion that going through the > computationally expensive process of bootstrapping is not actually > teaching me anything new, but I would like to get some sort of estimate > of error associated with the computed p-values. Some mention has been It looks to me as if #1 and 4 show a huge range, when judged by the appropriate standard of relative size. But, more important, #2 and 5 are unbelievable. That is, I would say that they are not 'useful' results. Either, they were not good candidates for bootstrapping, or something is wrong that is more serious than that. -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
