这个样本量(1,260)对于社会科学研究来说相当可观，提供了足够的数据基础进行分析。然而，文章也提到这不是代表性样本，因为受访者是受邀参与AI工作流程研究的，可能导致结果偏向于对AI工具更感兴趣的研究者。这一数据点表明研究结果可能存在选择偏差。

Makes sense to me. Looks to be similar across cohorts

What was the rationale for accrual of 130 cases has not been explained here. Would be nice to have that explanation. When the study parameters (95% confidence interval, 60% vaccine efficacy, 1% baseline attack rate) were applied to the WHO calculator obtained from here, the sample size turned out to be 86000, and when 80% confidence interval, 60% vaccine efficacy, and 1% baseline rate among unvaccinated) was used to assess sample size, it turned out to be 21000; in any case, the study then would be underpowered unless the rationale of 130 case accrual is made.<br> Why was not the WHO sample size estimator used?

Lakens, D. (2021). Sample Size Justification. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9d3yf

This is a page note. I can write overall comments about the pre-print here.

Tags can also be added below.

Power Analyses with SPSS, R, Stata, SAS

Althouse, A. D. (2020). Post Hoc Power: Not Empowering, Just Misleading. Journal of Surgical Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.10.049

Maarten van Smeden on Twitter: “This is a kind reminder that most issues with data (e.g. measurement error, incomplete data, confounding, selection) do not disappear just because you have N = ginormous” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved July 19, 2020, from https://twitter.com/MaartenvSmeden/status/1283313496382373890