The association is strongly statistically significant under the reported regression assumptions, but age alone has only moderate predictive ability. The reported confidence interval for the age regression coefficient excludes zero by a wide margin. If it is the usual two-sided 95% interval from a normal linear model with an intercept and one predictor, there are degrees of freedom. Taking gives
Thus the two-sided p-value against zero slope is far below . This conclusion concerns a statistical association in the sampled population; it does not establish an individual growth rate. Clustering by practitioner, nonconstant variance or nonindependent observations would require an appropriate standard error rather than blind reliance on this calculation.
The scatter plot has substantial vertical spread at each age. A narrow slope confidence interval describes uncertainty about the average trend, whereas a prediction interval for a new person's ear length must also include the residual variance. The reported interval even permits an approximate numerical assessment: write and let . In simple linear regression, , while the fitted and residual sums of squares are and . Hence the coefficient of determination is
Under these assumptions, age explains only about 27% of the sample variation; roughly 73% remains unexplained. The calculation is approximate because the printed slope and interval are rounded. For a new individual aged , the usual prediction interval is based on
The leading one represents individual residual variation. The provided summaries do not determine and separately, so they do not supply a numerical prediction interval.
Record sex, height or another measure of body size, ancestry, family characteristics and practitioner or measurement method. Use these covariates in a multiple linear regression, allowing scientifically justified nonlinear age effects or interactions, and assess prediction error on held-out observations. A guessed overall sex proportion cannot replace individual sex measurements or identify sex-adjusted effects.
There is a source inconsistency: the PDF's numerical ear-length summary is ten times the scale of its plotted measurements and fitted line. Indeed, the fitted line at the reported mean age gives about mm, whereas the printed mean is about ten times larger. Missing decimal points in the summary are a plausible explanation. The significance and approximate above use the mutually consistent slope, interval and graph; they do not treat the inconsistent summary as valid data.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.