James Steele
@jamessteeleii.bsky.social
700 followers
480 following
4.9K posts
I'm just a guy who's an academic for fun
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Pinned
Reposted by James Steele
![A two-panel forest-style plot showing results from an empirical study comparing the effects of ammonia inhalants, placebo, and control conditions on Peak Force (left) and Rate of Force Development (right). The x-axis represents Standardised Mean Difference (SMD), with dotted vertical lines marking the null region (–0.1 to 0.1). Each panel displays posterior distributions (gray density shapes) with mean estimates, 95% quantile intervals, and 2×log(BF) values indicating Bayes factors relative to the null region.
Peak Force panel:
Placebo vs Control: SMD = –0.08 [–0.28, 0.11], 2×log(BF) = 0.26
Ammonia vs Placebo: SMD = 0.22 [–0.01, 0.47], 2×log(BF) = 1.06
Ammonia vs Control: SMD = 0.14 [0.01, 0.30], 2×log(BF) = 0.91
Rate of Force Development panel:
Placebo vs Control: SMD = –0.08 [–0.28, 0.10], 2×log(BF) = –0.33
Ammonia vs Placebo: SMD = 0.30 [0.09, 0.52], 2×log(BF) = –0.53
Ammonia vs Control: SMD = 0.22 [0.09, 0.35], 2×log(BF) = 0.02
A note below the panels explains that 2×log(BF) values indicate the strength of evidence against the null, following the Kass and Raftery (1995) interpretation scale:
Negative = evidence for the null,
0–2 = weak,
2–6 = positive,
6–10 = strong,
10 = very strong evidence for an effect.
Overall, the posterior distributions overlap substantially, suggesting minimal change in beliefs from the prior evidence.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:evz2lw2i64j2p6qaawvfoohz/bafkreicl4mmfxkd626orcn5y2qf3imvb42jiraef75e66frvjkrvpx4yne@jpeg)
![A three-panel forest-style plot showing results from a contrast-based network meta-analysis comparing the effects of ammonia inhalants, placebo, and control conditions on power, speed, and strength outcomes. Each panel (Power, Speed, Strength) shows standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% quantile intervals for each contrast (Placebo vs Control, Ammonia vs Placebo, Ammonia vs Control).
Power:
Placebo vs Control: SMD = –0.09 [–0.26, 0.09], Probability of null effect = 51%, meaningful effect = 2%.
Ammonia vs Placebo: SMD = 0.33 [0.19, 0.46], Probability of null = 0%, meaningful = 100%.
Ammonia vs Control: SMD = 0.23 [0.10, 0.38], Probability of null = 2%, meaningful = 98%.
Speed:
Placebo vs Control: SMD = 0.05 [–0.34, 0.45], Probability of null = 38%, meaningful = 41%.
Ammonia vs Placebo: SMD = 0.02 [–0.35, 0.40], Probability of null = 40%, meaningful = 34%.
Ammonia vs Control: SMD = 0.08 [–0.25, 0.40], Probability of null = 42%, meaningful = 44%.
Strength:
Placebo vs Control: SMD = –0.06 [–0.27, 0.15], Probability of null = 57%, meaningful = 6%.
Ammonia vs Placebo: SMD = 0.18 [0.01, 0.36], Probability of null = 19%, meaningful = 81%.
Ammonia vs Control: SMD = 0.12 [0.03, 0.28], Probability of null = 42%, meaningful = 57%.
Each panel shows posterior distributions as gray density shapes, centered around the estimated SMDs. Dotted vertical lines indicate the null region (–0.1 to 0.1). Text at the bottom notes that probabilities of null and meaningful effects were calculated as the proportion of posterior mass within or beyond this region, respectively.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:evz2lw2i64j2p6qaawvfoohz/bafkreig6dy4k5zxoxsdi27kbxtpbleyysp27pivevv62rs7hayeai7u654@jpeg)
Reposted by James Steele
