I was curious so took a look, at least they say "This property of informative priors makes clear that only the use of non-informative, uniform priors in all types of Bayesian analyses is compatible with standards of research integrity."
I just went to check on some data that I have (~800 samples and ~1100 "taxa" after filtering) and this is what I get.
Not for every variable only some look like this. Although this is with unadjusted p-values, not adjusted.*
* And in this data I wasn't expecting this variable to be significant.
Bug in Springer Nature metadata may be causing ‘significant, systemic’ citation inflation
Not having to fmtskip fcase is going to save me so much typing!
Multiple different date formats in the same column is a recurring nightmare for me (bonus points if there are datetimes in there as well)...
Note to self: Absolutely make sure everyone involved understands that there will be zero "sub-studies" supported until the main trial report is complete and accepted for publication.
And required sample sizes will differ dramatically depending on what thing you pick, ranging from "this study is adequately powered" to "why even bother doing this research".
