Logarithmic axes are widely used by students and scientists, and are a frequent source of confusion and frustration. I wrote this 13 page article (table of contents below) to explain the uses and abuses of logarithmic axes. The article is written for users of GraphPad Prism, but almost all the information will be useful no matter how you make your graphs. 

---

What is a logarithmic axis?

• A logarithmic axis changes the scale of an axis.
• Interpolating between log ticks
• Why “logarithmic”?
• Lingo
• Other Bases

Logarithmic axes cannot contain zero or negative numbers

• The logarithms of negative numbers and zero are simply not defined
• A trick to plot zero on a logarithmic axis in Prism
• Logarithmic axes on bar graphs are misleading

When to use a logarithmic axis

• A logarithmic X axis is useful when the X values are logarithmically spaced
• A logarithmic axis is useful for plotting ratios
• A logarithmic axis linearizes compound interest and exponential growth
• An exponential decay curve is linear on a logarithmic axis, but only when it decays to zero

Lognormal distributions

• Plotting lognormal distributions on a logarithmic axis
• The mean and geometric mean
• Displaying variability on a lognormal distributions

Distinguish using a logarithmic axis from plotting logarithms

• Regression fits the data, not the graph
• Use antilog or powers-of-ten numbering when plotting values that are logs

---

 InStat presents the results in text tables, using multiple spaces to align columns. It looks great within InStat, and prints fine. But if you copy the results and paste into Excel, it becomes a mess. The problem is that Excel only sees a paragraph, not a table, so it pastes everything into one column.

But it is easy to fix things so the results are tabular within Excel:

1. Select and copy a block of tabular results from InStat.
2. Go to an empty table in Excel. Put the insertion point in the top left cell and paste.
3. Select the first column in Excel. This column contains everything you pasted.
4. Drop the Data menu. In Excel 2007, go to the Data tab.
5. Choose the Text to Columns command. In Excel 2007, click the button with that name.
6. Choose Fixed Width.
7. Finish the wizard, and your data will be in aligned Excel columns.

I've tested this with Excel 2007 (Win) and 2008 (Mac). It ought to work with earlier versions as well. I was not able to find a similar command in Numbers (part of iWork for Mac).

Our programmer have completed the work on InStat 3.1. The biggest change is that we've increased the maximum number of rows by a factor of ten, and doubled the maximum number of columns. Full list of changes. Contact me if you'd like to beta test InStat 3.1.

If you know twelve concepts about a given topic you will look like an expert to people who only know two or three.

Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert

When learning statistics, it is easy to get bogged down in the details, and lose track of the big picture. Here are the twelve most important concepts in statistical inference.

• Statistics lets you make general conclusions from limited data.

The whole point of inferential statistics is to extrapolate from limited data to make a general conclusion. "Descriptive statistics" simply describes data without reaching any general conclusions. But the challenging and difficult aspects of statistics are all about reaching general conclusions from limited data. 

• Statistics is not intuitive.

The word ‘intuitive’ has two meanings. One meaning is “easy to use and understand.” That was my goal when I wrote Intuitive Biostatistics .The other meaning of 'intuitive' is “instinctive, or acting on what one feels to be true even without reason.” Using this definition, statistical reasoning is far from intuitive. When thinking about data, intuition often leads us astray. People frequently see patterns in random data and often jump to unwarranted conclusions. Statistical rigor is needed to make valid conclusions from data. 

• Statistical conclusions are always presented in terms of probability. 

"Statistics means never having to say you are certain."   If a statistical conclusion ever seems certain, you probably are misunderstanding something. The whole point of statistics is to quantify uncertainty. 

• All statistical tests are based on assumptions.

Every statistical inference is based on a list of assumptions. Don't try to interpret any statistical results until after you have reviewed that list. An assumption behind every statistical calculation is that the data were randomly sampled, or at least representative of, a larger population of values that could have been collected. If your data are not representative of a larger set of data you could have collected (but didn't), then statistical inference makes no sense.

• Decisions about how to analyze data should be made in advance.

Analyzing data requires many decisions.  Parametric or nonparametric test? Eliminate outliers or not? Transform the data first? Normalize to external control values? Adjust for covariates? Use weighting factors in regression? All these decisions (and more) should be part of experimental design. When decisions about statistical analysis are made after inspecting the data, it is too easy for statistical analysis to become a high-tech Ouja board -- a method to produce preordained results, rather an objective method of analyzing data.

• A confidence interval quantifies precision, and is easy to interpret.

Say you've computed the mean of a set of values you've collected,or the proportion of subjects where some event happened. Those values describe the sample you've analyzed. But what about the overall population you sampled from? The true population mean (or proportion) might be higher, or it might be lower. The calculation of a 95% confidence interval takes into account sample size and scatter.  Given a set of assumptions,  you can be 95% sure that the confidence interval includes the true population value (which you could only know for sure by collecting an infinite amount of data). Of course, there is nothing special about 95% except tradition. Confidence itnervals can be computed for any degree of desired confidence. Amost all results -- proportions, relative risks, odds ratios, means, differences between means, slopes, rate constants... -- should be accompanied with a confidence interval. 

• A P values tests a null hypothesis, and is had to understand at first.

The logic of a P value seems strange at first. When testing whether two groups differ (different mean, different proportion, etc.), first hypothesize that the two populations are, in fact, identical. This is called the null hypothesis. Then ask: If thenull hypothesis were true, how unlikely would it be to randomly obtain samples where the difference is as large (or even larger) than actually observed? If the P value is large, your data are consistent with the null hypothesis. If the P value is small, there is only a small chance that random chance would have created as large a difference as actually observed. This makes you question whether the null hypothesis is true.   

• "Statistically significant" does not mean the effect is large or scientifically important.

If the P value is less than 0.05 (an arbitrary, but well accepted threshold), the results are deemed to be statistically significant. That phrase sounds so definitive. But all it means is that, by chance alone, the difference (or association or correlation..) you observed (or one even larger) would happen less than 5% of the time. That's it. A tiny effect that is scientifically or clinically trivial can be statistically significant (especially with large samples). That conclusion can also be wrong, as you'll reach a conclusion that results are statistically significant 5% of the time just by chance. 

• "Not statistically significant" does not mean there is no difference (or association . . .).

If a difference is not statistically significant, you can conclude that the observed results are not inconsistent with the null hypothesis. Note the double negative. You cannot conclude that the null hypothesis is true. It is quite possible that the null hypothesis is false, and that there really is a difference between the populations. This is especially a problem with small sample sizes.  It makes sense to define a result as being statistically significant or not statistically significant when you need to make a decision based on this one result. Othewise, the concept of statistical significance adds little to data analysis.


• Multiple comparisons make it hard to interpret statistical results.

When many hypotheses are tested at once, the problem of multiple comparisons makes it very easy to be fooled. If 5% of tests will be "statistically significant" by chance, you expect lots of statistically significant results if you test many hypotheses. Special methods can be used to reduce the problem of  finding false, but statistically significant, results, but these methods also make it harder to find true effects. Multiple comparisons can be insidious. It is only possible to correclty interpret statistical analyses when all analyses are planned, and all planned analyses are conducted and reported. However, these simple rules are widely broken. 

• Correlation does not mean causation.

A statistically significant correlation or association between two variables may indicate that one variable causes the other. But it may just mean that both are influenced by a third variable. Or it may be a coincidence.

• Published statistics tend to be optimistic.

By the time you read a paper, a great deal of selection has occurred. When experiments are successful, scientists continue the project. Lots of other projects get abandoned.When the project is done, scientists are more likely to write up projects that lead to remarkable results, or to keep analyzing the data in various ways to extract a "statistically significant" conclusion. Finally, journals are more likely to publish “positive” studies. If the null hypothesis were true, you would expect a statistically significant result in 5% of experiments. But those 5% are more likely to get published than the other 95%.
 

 

 

 

When Prism computes survival curves, it can also compute the 95% confidence interval at each time point (using two alternative methods). The methods are approximations, but can be interpreted like any confidence interval. You know the observed survival percentage at a certain time in your study, and can be 95% confident (given a set of assumptions) that the confidence interval contains the true population value (which you could only know for sure if you had an infinite amount of data). 

When these confidence intervals are plotted as error bars (left graph below) there is no problem. Prism can also connect the ends of the error bars, and create a shaded region (right graph below). This survival curve plots the survival of a sample of only seven people, so the confidence intervals are very wide. Prism file. 

The shaded region looks like the confidence bands computed by linear and nonlinear regression, so it is tempting to interpret these regions as confidence bands. But it is not correct to say that you can be 95% certain that these bands contain the entire survival curve. It is only correct to say that at any time point, there is a 95% chance that the interval contains the true percentage survival. The true survival curve (which you can't know) may be within the confidence intervals at some time points and outside the confidence intervals at other time points. 

It is possible (but not with Prism) to compute true confidence bands for survival curves, and these are wider than the confidence intervals shown above. The graph below (from Coviello) shows the survival curve in black (the sample was large, so the steps are small), the confidence limits in green, and the confidence bands in red. Confidence bands that are 95% certain to contain the entire survival curve (red) are wider than the confidence intervals for individual time points. 

 

 

(Thanks to Joe Felsenstein for pointing out the distinction between confidence intervals and confidence bands in survival curves. )

 

Prism handles missing values easily. When entering data, simply leave a blank spot for any value that is missing. Prism never treats an empty cell as if you had entered zero -- it always knows that is a missing value.

The details of how Prism handles missing values differs for various statistical tests. 

Unpaired t or or the Mann-Whitney nonparametric test

These tests work fine with unequal sample size. Missing values are not a problem.

Paired t or Wilcoxon matched pairs test

Prism only analyzes rows where there are data for both conditions. If one value is missing, that subject (row) is ignored.
One-way ANOVA (ordinary) or the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test)

Ordinary two-way repeated measures ANOVA -- Enter raw data

If some values are missing, two-way ANOVA calculations are challenging. Prism uses the method detailed in SA Glantz and BK Slinker (details below). This method converts the ANOVA problem to a multiple regression problem and then displays the results as ANOVA. Prism performs multiple regression three times — each time presenting columns, rows, and interaction to the multiple regression procedure in a different order. Although it calculates each sum-of-squares three times, Prism only displays the sum-of-squares for the factor entered last into the multiple regression equation. These are called Type III sum-of-squares.

Ordinary two-way repeated measures ANOVA -- Enter mean, SD (or SEM) and N

If your data are balanced (same sample size for each condition), you'll get the same results if you enter raw data, or if you enter mean, SD (or SEM), and N. If your data are unbalanced, it is impossible to calculate precise results from data entered as mean, SD (or SEM), and N. Instead, Prism uses a simpler method called analysis of “unweighted means”. This method is detailed in LD Fisher and G vanBelle (details below). If sample size is the same in all groups, and in some other special cases, this simpler method gives exactly the same results as obtained by analysis of the raw data. In other cases, however, the results will only be approximately correct. If your data are almost balanced (just one or a few missing values), the approximation is a good one. When data are unbalanced, you should enter individual replicates whenever possible.

Repeated measures two-way ANOVA

Prism cannot perform repeated-measures two-way ANOVA if any values are missing. It is OK to have different numbers of numbers of subjects in each group, so long as you have complete data (at each time point or dose) for each subject. Say you are comparing two groups (control and treated) measured at four time points. It would be fine if there were more treated subjects than control subjects, so long as each subject has data at all four time points. But Prism can not analyze repeated measures two-way ANOVA if one of the subjects only had data for three time points, with the fourth time point missing. 

Linear and nonlinear regression

Fitting lines and curves works fine with missing values. You can choose whether Prism fits the individual replicates or fits the means. If you choose to fit the means, each mean gets the same weight regardless of how many values were used to compute it. If you fit the individual replicates, then X values with more Y replicates get more weight than X values with fewer replicates.

Survival curves

Comparison of survival curves does not require equal sample size. If data are completely missing for any subject, simply don't enter data for that subject. But before deciding to leave data out, read about censoring which happens when you know the subject survived up until a certain point, but don't know what happened after that (or you know, but can't use the data because the experimental protocol wasn't followed). Prism handles censored data fine. Don't omit those subjects, enter the duration that they survived on the experimental protocol and mark that duration as censored. 

	Primer of Applied Regression & Analysis of Variance
	by Stanton Glantz, Bryan Slinker
	IBSN:0071360867. List price:$102.00
	Buy from amazon.com for $95.63

	Biostatistics: A Methodology For the Health Sciences (Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics)
	by Gerald van Belle, Patrick J. Heagerty, Lloyd D. Fisher
	IBSN:0471031852. List price:$150.00
	Buy from amazon.com for $112.50