> This study found that peak was at p < 1e-37
This is many orders of magnitudes better confidence than any physics experiment, it feels unlikely a biological result can even be this strong, so it makes it sound like a statistical error.
This is many orders of magnitudes better confidence than any physics experiment, it feels unlikely a biological result can even be this strong, so it makes it sound like a statistical error.
Also, things like gut microbiome and depression are linked through what some people call the _crud factor_, which are weak correlations between nearly all social aspects. For example, probably depressed people eat differently from non-depressed people, causing changes in their gut microbiome. Probably, there are variations in human population's depression rates and obesity rates (correlated with gut microbiome) that somewhat correlate. When you have enough statistical power, you see the crud factor everywhere.
Out of curiosity, what is your perspective on gnotobiotic systems? I distinctly recall an example of a gnotobiotic mouse that, upon being provided a microbial sample from an obese mouse, started to have substantial increases in body fat despite a simultaneous reduction in feed. Would that type of experimental approach still run into the statistical difficulties you mentioned?
So, a specific SNP mutation being predictive of a gene expression / protein is basically a p-value of 0.
Can't speak for physics experiments, but this is almost certainly not a statistical error