this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
84 points (88.2% liked)
Science
13013 readers
19 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
170 is a fairly substantial sample size, but it does pose challenges with data interpretation when there's no intervention and the expected effect size is small.
Life sciences often uses much smaller sample sizes, but with intervention.
At the absolute minimum, the headline here should be "found no evidence of" rather than "do not". The good old absence of evidence vs. evidence of absence thing.