← Back
In graph Frontier

Statistical significance

Statistical significance judges whether an observed effect is unlikely to be due to chance alone.

At a glance

Type
decision
Mental models 0
Role in the graph
Leaf concept

Key signals

Cross-disciplinary reach
Disciplines
2
  • Biostatistics
  • Statistics
Evidence & development

Dependencies

What this concept builds on and what it makes possible — derived from the atlas’s dependency, causal and structural relations, not from every related edge.

System context

Statistical significanceis part ofBiostatisticsEstablished

Open Biostatistics →

Significance testing is central here.

Mechanism: Deciding whether a medical effect is real rests on the significance tests biostatistics provides.

Structural role & consequence

Interpreted from the current atlas graph — what the connections mean, not just how many there are.

  • Currently dark in the atlas: no key date stored · 1 of 1 of its relations lack claim-level evidence.

    atlas representation · Describes the current Thinking OS representation, not the state of the world.

  • Structural neighbourhood: 1 → 3 → 23 concepts reachable within 3 hops.

    structural · Structural reach — being reachable is not the same as being understood.

  • All 1 of its relationships stay within its own discipline — a field-specific concept in the current atlas.

    structural · Structural graph analysis — not a claim of importance, causation or history.

0%

cross-field
1 within-field, 0 cross-field

0 of 1 relations carry evidence · concept has a verified source

Strengths & constraints

Constraints

  • Evidence coverage currently thin in the atlas — few of its relationships carry claim-level evidence. atlas representation
  • No dated history stored — the atlas records no key date for this concept. atlas representation

Conditions

  • Read structurally — most of its relationships carry no external evidence yet, so claims here are graph-derived. structural

Seen through each discipline

How this concept sits in each of its fields — derived from its real connections in the graph, not asserted.

What it looks like

Concrete cases that make this idea recognisable in the real world.

Significant but trivial

With a million users, an A/B test can show a 'highly significant' 0.01% change in clicks — real, but far too small to matter. Significance answered 'is there any effect?', not 'is it worth acting on?'

Check yourself

A quick check against a common misconception. Nothing is scored — picking the tempting-but-wrong answer just flags an idea worth revisiting.

Which statement is correct?

Common misconceptions

A statistically significant result is a large, important, and certainly true one.

Significance (a small p-value) only says the data would be unlikely if there were no effect. It says nothing about the effect's SIZE or importance, and with enough data a trivial effect becomes significant. It is not the probability the hypothesis is true.

Concepts that look related but are not yet connected here — candidates for a connection to reason about, not established links.

The scientific picture
  • Connects 1 other ideas across 2 disciplines.
  • Most of its connections are of the “Kind & structure” kind.

Derived from the graph’s real structure — observations, not a score.

Sources