help
help > RE: Inconsistent results
Nov 4, 2014 12:11 AM | Andrew Zalesky
RE: Inconsistent results
Hi Jiaolong,
What you describe is possible. For a threshold below 2.5, the edges F, G and T only comprise a component of size 3, which was probably too small to reach significance. However, once you increased the threshold above 2.5, a component of size 3 was sufficient to reach significance. But the test statistic at edges A, B, C and D might not have exceeded 2.5 and thus this component disappeared.
Andrew
Originally posted by jiaolong qin:
What you describe is possible. For a threshold below 2.5, the edges F, G and T only comprise a component of size 3, which was probably too small to reach significance. However, once you increased the threshold above 2.5, a component of size 3 was sufficient to reach significance. But the test statistic at edges A, B, C and D might not have exceeded 2.5 and thus this component disappeared.
Andrew
Originally posted by jiaolong qin:
Hi Andrew,
Recently, I have come across a problem when using NBS. I compared the networks between two groups and set the thresholds from 2.2 to 3.0, separately. All these comparisons found significant results. But among these results, there was a strange thing. For example, when the parameters set as 2.2-2.5, the corresponding significant results consistently located within A, B, C and D edges. However, once the parameter values set above 2.5, the corresponding significant results were in F, G and T edges. I am very confused with these results why when the parameter values set above 2.5, the significant results were not consistent with those parameters setting below 2.5? Were these results reasonable? Why did appear such phenomenon? Would you like to give me some suggestions to understand it? Thank you very much in advance!
Best regards,
Jiaolong
Recently, I have come across a problem when using NBS. I compared the networks between two groups and set the thresholds from 2.2 to 3.0, separately. All these comparisons found significant results. But among these results, there was a strange thing. For example, when the parameters set as 2.2-2.5, the corresponding significant results consistently located within A, B, C and D edges. However, once the parameter values set above 2.5, the corresponding significant results were in F, G and T edges. I am very confused with these results why when the parameter values set above 2.5, the significant results were not consistent with those parameters setting below 2.5? Were these results reasonable? Why did appear such phenomenon? Would you like to give me some suggestions to understand it? Thank you very much in advance!
Best regards,
Jiaolong
Threaded View
| Title | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|
| jiaolong qin | Nov 3, 2014 | |
| Andrew Zalesky | Nov 4, 2014 | |
| Lorna Garcia Penton | Sep 30, 2015 | |
| Andrew Zalesky | Sep 30, 2015 | |
| Lorna Garcia Penton | Oct 5, 2015 | |
| jiaolong qin | Nov 4, 2014 | |
| Andrew Zalesky | Nov 5, 2014 | |
| jiaolong qin | Nov 5, 2014 | |