Applied Bayesian Approaches for Research in Motor Neuron Disease

Abstract

Statistical evaluation of empirical data is the basis of the modern scientific method. Available tools include various hypothesis tests for specific data structures, as well as methods that are used to quantify the uncertainty of an obtained result. Statistics are pivotal, but many misconceptions arise due to their complexity and difficult-to-acquire mathematical background. Even though most studies rely on a frequentist interpretation of statistical readouts, the application of Bayesian statistics has increased due to the availability of easy-to-use software suites and an increased outreach favouring this topic in the scientific community. Bayesian statistics take our prior knowledge together with the obtained data to express a degree of belief how likely a certain event is. Bayes factor hypothesis testing (BFHT) provides a straightforward method to evaluate multiple hypotheses at the same time and provides evidence that favors the null hypothesis or alternative hypothesis. In the present perspective, we show the merits of BFHT for three different use cases, including a clinical trial, basic research as well as a single case study. Here we show that Bayesian statistics is a viable addition of a scientist's statistical toolset, which can help to interpret data.

Treatment of task-specific dystonia in sports: A systematic review

“…An alternative is crossover RCTs, where groups are exposed to different treatments regiments sequentially. In instances where only single-case designs are feasible, we recommend using new forms of Bayesian analysis that allow for statistical inferences to be made, even n = 1 style designs [67] . Finally in all studies, interventions should not be trialed simultaneously [33] , [42] .…”

Cognitive and behavioural but not motor impairment increases brain age in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

“…Bayes factors do not require thresholding akin to P < .05 to determine statistical significance: instead they fall on a continuum ranging from support for the null hypothesis via no support for either hypothesis to support for the alternative hypothesis. 22 Additionally, we can add qualitative descriptors by stating that BF 10 > 100 constitutes ‘extreme evidence’ for H 1 , BF 10 > 30 constitutes ‘very strong’ evidence for H 1 , BF 10 > 10 constitutes ‘strong’ evidence for H 1 and BF 10 > 3 constitutes ‘moderate’ support for H 1 .…”