Statistical significance : p value, 0.05 threshold, and applications to radiomics—reasons for a conservative approach

Here, we summarise the unresolved debate about p value and its dichotomisation. We present the statement of the American Statistical Association against the misuse of statistical significance as well as the proposals to abandon the use of p value and to reduce the significance threshold from 0.05 to 0.005. We highlight reasons for a conservative approach, as clinical research needs dichotomic answers to guide decision-making, in particular in the case of diagnostic imaging and interventional radiology. With a reduced p value threshold, the cost of research could increase while spontaneous research could be reduced. Secondary evidence from systematic reviews/meta-analyses, data sharing, and cost-effective analyses are better ways to mitigate the false discovery rate and lack of reproducibility associated with the use of the 0.05 threshold. Importantly, when reporting p values, authors should always provide the actual value, not only statements of \u201cp < 0.05\u201d or \u201cp 65 0.05\u201d, because p values give a measure of the degree of data compatibility with the null hypothesis. Notably, radiomics and big data, fuelled by the application of artificial intelligence, involve hundreds/thousands of tested features similarly to other \u201comics\u201d such as genomics, where a reduction in the significance threshold, based on well-known corrections for multiple testing, has been already adopted