andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-21 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: The (U.S.) “President’s Cancer Panel” has released its 2008-2009 annual report, which includes a cover letter that says “the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.” The report itself discusses exposures to various types of industrial chemicals, some of which are known carcinogens, in some detail, but gives nearly no data or analysis to suggest that these exposures are contributing to significant numbers of cancers. In fact, there is pretty good evidence that they are not. The plot above shows age-adjusted cancer mortality for men, by cancer type, in the U.S. The plot below shows the same for women. In both cases, the cancers with the highest mortality rates are shown, but not all cancers (e.g. brain cancer is not shown). For what it’s worth, I’m not sure how trustworthy the rates are from the 1930s — it seems possible that reporting, autopsies, or both, were less careful during the Great Depression — so I suggest focusing on the r
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 ) “President’s Cancer Panel” has released its 2008-2009 annual report, which includes a cover letter that says “the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. [sent-3, score-1.046]
2 ” The report itself discusses exposures to various types of industrial chemicals, some of which are known carcinogens, in some detail, but gives nearly no data or analysis to suggest that these exposures are contributing to significant numbers of cancers. [sent-4, score-0.497]
3 The plot above shows age-adjusted cancer mortality for men, by cancer type, in the U. [sent-6, score-1.719]
4 In both cases, the cancers with the highest mortality rates are shown, but not all cancers (e. [sent-9, score-0.848]
5 For what it’s worth, I’m not sure how trustworthy the rates are from the 1930s — it seems possible that reporting, autopsies, or both, were less careful during the Great Depression — so I suggest focusing on the rates starting in about 1945. [sent-12, score-0.278]
6 Note that there’s no sign of the famous “breast cancer epidemic” in the cancer mortality rates…nor of any other “epidemic” except lung and bronchial cancer, which are known to be smoking-induced. [sent-14, score-2.008]
7 This is a strong argument against chemically-induced cancers being a major factor, because exposures to most of the chemicals mentioned in the President’s Cancer Panel report increased enormously between WWII and the 1990s. [sent-15, score-0.694]
8 Most of the claims of an “epidemic” of cancer are based on cancer “incidence,” which has indeed increased a lot, especially since the 1970s. [sent-16, score-1.467]
9 “Incidence” does not mean “the fraction of people who contract cancer,” as you might expect. [sent-18, score-0.057]
10 It means “the fraction of people who are diagnosed with cancer. [sent-19, score-0.101]
11 There is no question that cancer “incidence” has increased a lot since the 1950s. [sent-21, score-0.767]
12 But there’s little or no evidence that more people are getting cancer (except lung and bronchial cancer). [sent-22, score-0.952]
13 It’s true that in the past ten years or so, medical treatment of many cancers has improved remarkably, but it cannot be true that treatment of many different cancers over fifty years happened to hold the mortality rate nearly constant. [sent-24, score-1.101]
14 It is possible that future cancer mortality, or the probability of getting cancer, will increase due to chemicals introduced in the past ten or twenty years — there is a lag between exposure and the development of cancer. [sent-25, score-1.069]
15 But the data available to date do not support the claim that “the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. [sent-26, score-1.046]
16 ” There are plenty of other reasons to object to chemical exposures, of course. [sent-27, score-0.038]
17 I hope the release of industrial chemicals to the environment, and human exposure through all routes, decreases substantially. [sent-28, score-0.285]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('cancer', 0.7), ('mortality', 0.277), ('cancers', 0.236), ('incidence', 0.202), ('chemicals', 0.165), ('exposures', 0.165), ('bronchial', 0.144), ('breast', 0.137), ('epidemic', 0.114), ('lung', 0.108), ('rates', 0.099), ('colon', 0.096), ('shown', 0.089), ('men', 0.089), ('environmentally', 0.087), ('women', 0.085), ('panel', 0.083), ('stomach', 0.082), ('grossly', 0.07), ('induced', 0.069), ('increased', 0.067), ('burden', 0.066), ('industrial', 0.066), ('report', 0.061), ('fraction', 0.057), ('increase', 0.056), ('treatment', 0.055), ('exposure', 0.054), ('true', 0.054), ('ten', 0.047), ('past', 0.047), ('president', 0.046), ('betty', 0.044), ('diagnosed', 0.044), ('laudable', 0.044), ('routes', 0.044), ('plot', 0.042), ('carcinogens', 0.041), ('contracting', 0.041), ('leukemia', 0.041), ('stays', 0.041), ('wwii', 0.041), ('starting', 0.041), ('nearly', 0.04), ('famous', 0.04), ('hawaii', 0.039), ('liver', 0.039), ('trustworthy', 0.039), ('except', 0.039), ('chemical', 0.038)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999982 21 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-07-Environmentally induced cancer “grossly underestimated”? Doubtful.
Introduction: The (U.S.) “President’s Cancer Panel” has released its 2008-2009 annual report, which includes a cover letter that says “the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.” The report itself discusses exposures to various types of industrial chemicals, some of which are known carcinogens, in some detail, but gives nearly no data or analysis to suggest that these exposures are contributing to significant numbers of cancers. In fact, there is pretty good evidence that they are not. The plot above shows age-adjusted cancer mortality for men, by cancer type, in the U.S. The plot below shows the same for women. In both cases, the cancers with the highest mortality rates are shown, but not all cancers (e.g. brain cancer is not shown). For what it’s worth, I’m not sure how trustworthy the rates are from the 1930s — it seems possible that reporting, autopsies, or both, were less careful during the Great Depression — so I suggest focusing on the r
2 0.37036538 1766 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-16-“Nightshifts Linked to Increased Risk for Ovarian Cancer”
Introduction: Zosia Chustecka writes : Much of the previous work on the link between cancer and nightshifts has focused on breast cancer . . . The latest report, focusing on ovarian cancer, was published in the April issue of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. This increase in the risk for ovarian cancer with nightshift work is consistent with, and of similar magnitude to, the risk for breast cancer, say lead author Parveen Bhatti, PhD, and colleagues from the epidemiology program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington. The researchers examined data from a local population-based cancer registry that is part of the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. They identified 1101 women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer, 389 with borderline disease, and 1832 without ovarian cancer (control group). The women, who were 35 to 74 years of age, were asked about the hours they worked, and specifically whether they had ever worked the nig
Introduction: Aaron Carroll shoots down a politically-loaded claim about cancer survival. Lots of useful background from science reporter Sharon Begley: With the United States spending more on healthcare than any other country — $2.5 trillion, or just over $8,000 per capita, in 2009 — the question has long been, is it worth it? At least for spending on cancer, a controversial new study answers with an emphatic “yes.” . . . Experts shown an advance copy of the paper by Reuters argued that the tricky statistics of cancer outcomes tripped up the authors. “This study is pure folly,” said biostatistician Dr. Don Berry of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “It’s completely misguided and it’s dangerous. Not only are the authors’ analyses flawed but their conclusions are also wrong.” Ouch. Arguably the study shouldn’t be getting any coverage at all, but given that it’s in the news, it’s good to see it get shot down. I wonder if the authors will respond to Don Berry and say they’re sorr
4 0.23844254 2205 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-10-More on US health care overkill
Introduction: Paul Alper writes: You recently posted my moving and widening the goalposts contention. In it, I mentioned “how diagnoses increase markedly while deaths are flatlined” indicating that we are being overdiagnosed and overtreated. Above are 5 frightening graphs which illustrate the phenomenon. Defenders of the system might (ludicrously) contend that it is precisely the aggressive medical care that is responsible for keeping the cancers under control. The prostate cancer graph is particularly interesting because it shows the peaking of the PSA-driven cause of treatment in the 1990s which then falls off as the evidence accumulates that the PSA was far from a perfect indicator. In contrast is the thyroid cancer which zooms skyward even as the death rate is absolutely (dead) flat. And of course here’s the famous cross-country comparison that some find “ schlocky ” but which I (and many others) find compelling :
5 0.23593232 1288 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-29-Clueless Americans think they’ll never get sick
Introduction: Cassie Murdoch points to a report from a corporate survey: Sixty-two percent of U.S. employees say it’s not likely they or a family member will be diagnosed with a serious illness like cancer, a survey indicates. The Aflac WorkForces Report, a survey of nearly 1,900 benefits decision-makers and more than 6,100 U.S. workers, also indicated 55 percent said they were not very or not at all likely to be diagnosed with a chronic illness, such as heart disease or diabetes. Here are some actual statistics: The American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures 2012, said 1-in-3 women and 1-in-2 men will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and the National Safety Council, Injury Facts 2011 edition, says more than 38.9 million injuries occur in a year requiring medical treatment. The American Heart Association, Heart Disease & Stroke Statistics 2012, said 1-in-6 U.S. deaths were caused by coronary heart disease, Tillman said. And some details on the survey:
6 0.16540845 1480 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-02-“If our product is harmful . . . we’ll stop making it.”
7 0.16399886 1906 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-19-“Behind a cancer-treatment firm’s rosy survival claims”
9 0.13437688 3 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-26-Bayes in the news…in a somewhat frustrating way
10 0.12735949 1725 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-17-“1.7%” ha ha ha
12 0.11553179 1186 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-27-Confusion from illusory precision
13 0.11062474 1741 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-27-Thin scientists say it’s unhealthy to be fat
14 0.11032289 48 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-23-The bane of many causes
16 0.1063374 383 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-31-Analyzing the entire population rather than a sample
17 0.10353181 2118 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-30-???
18 0.10043831 53 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-Tumors, on the left, or on the right?
19 0.098936379 1199 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-05-Any available cookbooks on Bayesian designs?
20 0.09740033 12 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-30-More on problems with surveys estimating deaths in war zones
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.091), (1, -0.029), (2, 0.036), (3, -0.053), (4, 0.003), (5, -0.022), (6, -0.009), (7, 0.022), (8, -0.018), (9, 0.006), (10, -0.063), (11, -0.035), (12, 0.033), (13, 0.024), (14, 0.004), (15, 0.039), (16, 0.062), (17, 0.009), (18, 0.014), (19, -0.001), (20, -0.008), (21, 0.056), (22, -0.057), (23, -0.025), (24, -0.009), (25, 0.056), (26, -0.081), (27, -0.055), (28, 0.016), (29, -0.009), (30, -0.077), (31, 0.066), (32, 0.021), (33, 0.009), (34, 0.002), (35, 0.021), (36, 0.036), (37, -0.001), (38, 0.032), (39, 0.008), (40, -0.058), (41, -0.046), (42, 0.03), (43, -0.019), (44, 0.043), (45, 0.018), (46, 0.035), (47, 0.062), (48, -0.048), (49, -0.011)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97057176 21 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-07-Environmentally induced cancer “grossly underestimated”? Doubtful.
Introduction: The (U.S.) “President’s Cancer Panel” has released its 2008-2009 annual report, which includes a cover letter that says “the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.” The report itself discusses exposures to various types of industrial chemicals, some of which are known carcinogens, in some detail, but gives nearly no data or analysis to suggest that these exposures are contributing to significant numbers of cancers. In fact, there is pretty good evidence that they are not. The plot above shows age-adjusted cancer mortality for men, by cancer type, in the U.S. The plot below shows the same for women. In both cases, the cancers with the highest mortality rates are shown, but not all cancers (e.g. brain cancer is not shown). For what it’s worth, I’m not sure how trustworthy the rates are from the 1930s — it seems possible that reporting, autopsies, or both, were less careful during the Great Depression — so I suggest focusing on the r
2 0.82962728 1766 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-16-“Nightshifts Linked to Increased Risk for Ovarian Cancer”
Introduction: Zosia Chustecka writes : Much of the previous work on the link between cancer and nightshifts has focused on breast cancer . . . The latest report, focusing on ovarian cancer, was published in the April issue of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. This increase in the risk for ovarian cancer with nightshift work is consistent with, and of similar magnitude to, the risk for breast cancer, say lead author Parveen Bhatti, PhD, and colleagues from the epidemiology program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington. The researchers examined data from a local population-based cancer registry that is part of the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. They identified 1101 women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer, 389 with borderline disease, and 1832 without ovarian cancer (control group). The women, who were 35 to 74 years of age, were asked about the hours they worked, and specifically whether they had ever worked the nig
3 0.79771358 1741 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-27-Thin scientists say it’s unhealthy to be fat
Introduction: “Even as you get near the upper reaches of the normal weight range, you begin to see increases in chronic diseases,” said JoAnn Manson, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, HMS Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, and HSPH professor of epidemiology. “It’s a clear gradient of increase.” Yeah, she would say that. Thin people. And then there’s Frank Hu, professor of nutrition at Harvard: The studies that Flegal [the author of the original study finding a negative correlation between body mass index and mortality] did use included many samples of people who were chronically ill, current smokers and elderly, according to Hu. These factors are associated with weight loss and increased mortality. In other words, people are not dying because they are slim, he said. They are slim because they are dying—of cancer or old age, for example. By doing a meta-analysis of studies that did not properly control for this bias, Flegal amplif
4 0.74718714 1906 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-19-“Behind a cancer-treatment firm’s rosy survival claims”
Introduction: Brett Keller points to a recent news article by Sharon Begley and Robin Respaut: A lot of doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers in the United States decline to treat people who can’t pay, or have inadequate insurance, among other reasons. What sets CTCA [Cancer Treatment Centers of America] apart is that rejecting certain patients and, even more, culling some of its patients from its survival data lets the company tout in ads and post on its website patient outcomes that look dramatically better than they would if the company treated all comers. These are the rosy survival numbers . . . Details: CTCA reports on its website that the percentage of its patients who are alive after six months, a year, 18 months and longer regularly tops national figures. For instance, 60 percent of its non-small-cell lung cancer patients are alive at six months, CTCA says, compared to 38 percent nationally. And 64 percent of its prostate cancer patients are alive at three years, vers
Introduction: Aaron Carroll shoots down a politically-loaded claim about cancer survival. Lots of useful background from science reporter Sharon Begley: With the United States spending more on healthcare than any other country — $2.5 trillion, or just over $8,000 per capita, in 2009 — the question has long been, is it worth it? At least for spending on cancer, a controversial new study answers with an emphatic “yes.” . . . Experts shown an advance copy of the paper by Reuters argued that the tricky statistics of cancer outcomes tripped up the authors. “This study is pure folly,” said biostatistician Dr. Don Berry of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “It’s completely misguided and it’s dangerous. Not only are the authors’ analyses flawed but their conclusions are also wrong.” Ouch. Arguably the study shouldn’t be getting any coverage at all, but given that it’s in the news, it’s good to see it get shot down. I wonder if the authors will respond to Don Berry and say they’re sorr
6 0.68071038 1288 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-29-Clueless Americans think they’ll never get sick
7 0.68057668 2205 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-10-More on US health care overkill
8 0.66833544 48 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-23-The bane of many causes
10 0.64657837 2114 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-26-“Please make fun of this claim”
12 0.62207013 2049 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-03-On house arrest for p-hacking
13 0.62002176 2328 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-10-What property is important in a risk prediction model? Discrimination or calibration?
14 0.61992508 1160 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-09-Familial Linkage between Neuropsychiatric Disorders and Intellectual Interests
16 0.59932137 1548 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-25-Health disparities are associated with low life expectancy
17 0.59682673 1147 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-30-Statistical Murder
18 0.5954423 12 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-30-More on problems with surveys estimating deaths in war zones
19 0.59434277 2022 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-13-You heard it here first: Intense exercise can suppress appetite
20 0.59103143 53 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-Tumors, on the left, or on the right?
topicId topicWeight
[(15, 0.015), (16, 0.066), (18, 0.011), (21, 0.033), (22, 0.022), (24, 0.076), (42, 0.013), (44, 0.011), (53, 0.019), (55, 0.027), (61, 0.187), (76, 0.014), (95, 0.06), (99, 0.272)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.96370667 1558 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-02-Not so fast on levees and seawalls for NY harbor?
Introduction: I was talking with June Williamson and mentioned offhand that I’d seen something in the paper saying that if only we’d invested a few billion dollars in levees we would’ve saved zillions in economic damage from the flood. (A quick search also revealed this eerily prescient article from last month and, more recently, this online discussion.) June said, No, no, no: levees are not the way to go: Here and here are the articles on “soft infrastructure” for the New York-New Jersey Harbor I was mentioning, summarizing work that is more extensively published in two books, “Rising Currents” and “On the Water: Palisade Bay”: The hazards posed by climate change, sea level rise, and severe storm surges make this the time to transform our coastal cities through adaptive design. The conventional response to flooding, in recent history, has been hard engineering — fortifying the coastal infrastructure with seawalls and bulkheads to protect real estate at the expense of natural t
2 0.95846921 1028 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-26-Tenure lets you handle students who cheat
Introduction: The other day, a friend of mine who is an untenured professor (not in statistics or political science) was telling me about a class where many of the students seemed to be resubmitting papers that they had already written for previous classes. (The supposition was based on internal evidence of the topics of the submitted papers.) It would be possible to check this and then kick the cheating students out of the program—but why do it? It would be a lot of work, also some of the students who are caught might complain, then word would get around that my friend is a troublemaker. And nobody likes a troublemaker. Once my friend has tenure it would be possible to do the right thing. But . . . here’s the hitch: most college instructors do not have tenure, and one result, I suspect, is a decline in ethical standards. This is something I hadn’t thought of in our earlier discussion of job security for teachers: tenure gives you the freedom to kick out cheating students.
same-blog 3 0.94711113 21 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-07-Environmentally induced cancer “grossly underestimated”? Doubtful.
Introduction: The (U.S.) “President’s Cancer Panel” has released its 2008-2009 annual report, which includes a cover letter that says “the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.” The report itself discusses exposures to various types of industrial chemicals, some of which are known carcinogens, in some detail, but gives nearly no data or analysis to suggest that these exposures are contributing to significant numbers of cancers. In fact, there is pretty good evidence that they are not. The plot above shows age-adjusted cancer mortality for men, by cancer type, in the U.S. The plot below shows the same for women. In both cases, the cancers with the highest mortality rates are shown, but not all cancers (e.g. brain cancer is not shown). For what it’s worth, I’m not sure how trustworthy the rates are from the 1930s — it seems possible that reporting, autopsies, or both, were less careful during the Great Depression — so I suggest focusing on the r
4 0.94107008 9 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-28-But it all goes to pay for gas, car insurance, and tolls on the turnpike
Introduction: As a New Yorker I think I’m obliged to pass on the occasional Jersey joke (most recently, this one , which annoyingly continues to attract spam comments). I’ll let the above title be my comment on this entry from Tyler Cowen entitled, “Which Americans are ‘best off’?”: If you consult human development indices the answer is Asians living in New Jersey. The standard is: The index factors in life expectancy at birth, educational degree attainment among adults 25-years or older, school enrollment for people at least three years old and median annual gross personal earnings. More generally, these sorts of rankings and ndexes seem to be cheap ways of grabbing headlines. This has always irritated me but really maybe I should go with the flow and invent a few of these indexes myself.
5 0.93456453 16 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-04-Burgess on Kipling
Introduction: This is my last entry derived from Anthony Burgess’s book reviews , and it’ll be short. His review of Angus Wilson’s “The Strange Ride of Rudyard Kipling: His Life and Works” is a wonderfully balanced little thing. Nothing incredibly deep–like most items in the collection, the review is only two pages long–but I give it credit for being a rare piece of Kipling criticism I’ve seen that (a) seriously engages with the politics, without (b) congratulating itself on bravely going against the fashions of the politically incorrect chattering classes by celebrating Kipling’s magnificent achievement blah blah blah. Instead, Burgess shows respect for Kipling’s work and puts it in historical, biographical, and literary context. Burgess concludes that Wilson’s book “reminds us, in John Gross’s words, that Kipling ‘remains a haunting, unsettling presence, with whom we still have to come to terms.’ Still.” Well put, and generous of Burgess to end his review with another’s quote. Other cri
6 0.93154502 1370 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-07-Duncan Watts and the Titanic
8 0.92238235 714 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-16-NYT Labs releases Openpaths, a utility for saving your iphone data
9 0.91808522 2349 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-26-WAIC and cross-validation in Stan!
10 0.91702491 1975 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-09-Understanding predictive information criteria for Bayesian models
11 0.89950979 1714 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-09-Partial least squares path analysis
12 0.89466512 561 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-06-Poverty, educational performance – and can be done about it
13 0.89320034 827 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-28-Amusing case of self-defeating science writing
14 0.8818447 2134 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-14-Oswald evidence
15 0.87633669 1739 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-26-An AI can build and try out statistical models using an open-ended generative grammar
16 0.87593365 776 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-22-Deviance, DIC, AIC, cross-validation, etc
17 0.86961758 2033 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-23-More on Bayesian methods and multilevel modeling
19 0.85908598 2070 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-20-The institution of tenure
20 0.85752076 72 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-07-Valencia: Summer of 1991