Using t-tests to get trials until significance ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mirumirai
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Significance
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the number of trials needed to achieve statistical significance using t-tests on two data sets. The user has calculated the t-test for unequal variances but is unsure how to estimate the required sample size due to potential differences in means and variances. They have manipulated the formula to estimate the number of trials needed to reach a t-value of 1.96, indicating significance. The main concern is how to account for the variability in the data when calculating the required trials. The thread seeks guidance on accurately estimating the number of trials needed for their experiment.
mirumirai
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Using t-tests to get "trials until significance"?

Hi all,
I am stumped on how to achieve this with the data I have. My PI thinks there is a way, but I can't seem to find it. We want to see whether we should go ahead with this experiment or if it will take too much time.

Basically, I have 2 sets of data. I am looking to see which one conforms to a logarithmic regression line better, i.e. which one has better fit. To do that, I checked the r^2 values, and then did a t-test for unequal variance on the residual sum of squares. The difference was miniscule (p=.73).

Now, what I have at the moment is the formula for the t-test for unequal variances:
t=(xa-xb)/sqrt((sa+sb)/n)

where xa and xb are the sample means, sa and sb are the sample variances, and n is the number of trials (the actual formula uses sa/na + sb/nb, but I have the same number of data points for each set of data)

I manipulated it to show how many trials I need until t=1.96 (basically just close to significance)
n=(sa+sb)/((xa-xb)/t)^2

The issue I have with this, though, is that the means and variances could be different. How can I use this to calculate the estimated number of trials when the data I have may not be accurate? Is there even a way to do this?
Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Back
Top