andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-53 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: In response to the post The bane of many causes in the context of mobile phone use and brain cancer, Robert Erikson wrote: The true control here is the side of the head of the tumor: same side as phone use or opposite side. If that is the test, the data from the study are scary. Clearly tumors are more likely on the “same” side, at whatever astronomical p value you want to use. That cannot be explained away by misremembering, since an auxiliary study showed misremembering was not biased toward cell phone-tumor consistency. A strong signal in the data pointed by Prof. Erikson is that the tumors are overwhelmingly likelier to appear on the same side of the head as where the phone is held. I’ve converted the ratios into percentages, based on an assumption that the risk for tumors would be apriori equal for both sides of the head. There is a group of people with low-to-moderate exposure and high lateral bias, but the bias does increase quite smoothly with increasing
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 In response to the post The bane of many causes in the context of mobile phone use and brain cancer, Robert Erikson wrote: The true control here is the side of the head of the tumor: same side as phone use or opposite side. [sent-1, score-1.812]
2 If that is the test, the data from the study are scary. [sent-2, score-0.054]
3 Clearly tumors are more likely on the “same” side, at whatever astronomical p value you want to use. [sent-3, score-0.51]
4 That cannot be explained away by misremembering, since an auxiliary study showed misremembering was not biased toward cell phone-tumor consistency. [sent-4, score-0.513]
5 Erikson is that the tumors are overwhelmingly likelier to appear on the same side of the head as where the phone is held. [sent-6, score-1.266]
6 I’ve converted the ratios into percentages, based on an assumption that the risk for tumors would be apriori equal for both sides of the head. [sent-7, score-0.84]
7 There is a group of people with low-to-moderate exposure and high lateral bias, but the bias does increase quite smoothly with increasing exposure. [sent-8, score-0.324]
8 But even with something apparently simple like handedness, there are possible confounding factors. [sent-10, score-0.077]
9 For example, left-handed and ambidextrous people have a lower risk of brain cancer , perhaps because they zap their brain with cell phones more evenly across both sides, reducing the risk that a single DNA strand will be zapped one too many times, but they also earn more . [sent-11, score-1.538]
10 I’ve written about handling multiple potential causes at the same time a few years ago . [sent-12, score-0.18]
11 The authors also point out that people might be inclined to blame it all on the phones and to report phone use on the side where the tumor was identified. [sent-13, score-1.225]
12 This could be resolved if the controls are led to think that they have a tumor too, or if instead of asking how the phone is held, the interviewers instead made a call and observed the subject, or asked about a value neutral attribute such as handedness. [sent-14, score-1.091]
13 Still, even in papers that reject the influence of phones on brain tumors, it’s always the case that more tumors are on the right side, just as we know that more people are right-handed than left-handed. [sent-15, score-0.989]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('tumors', 0.439), ('phone', 0.296), ('phones', 0.263), ('tumor', 0.246), ('erikson', 0.246), ('side', 0.24), ('brain', 0.227), ('misremembering', 0.194), ('risk', 0.136), ('cell', 0.126), ('sides', 0.114), ('head', 0.114), ('causes', 0.112), ('cancer', 0.111), ('strand', 0.097), ('bane', 0.097), ('likelier', 0.097), ('dna', 0.092), ('lateral', 0.092), ('converted', 0.088), ('evenly', 0.088), ('handedness', 0.088), ('bias', 0.087), ('smoothly', 0.085), ('interviewers', 0.082), ('auxiliary', 0.082), ('overwhelmingly', 0.08), ('mobile', 0.078), ('confounding', 0.077), ('neutral', 0.075), ('investigation', 0.073), ('value', 0.071), ('earn', 0.07), ('percentages', 0.069), ('resolved', 0.068), ('handling', 0.068), ('inclined', 0.066), ('attribute', 0.064), ('instead', 0.063), ('ratios', 0.063), ('controls', 0.063), ('exposure', 0.06), ('reject', 0.06), ('signal', 0.058), ('blame', 0.058), ('biased', 0.057), ('reducing', 0.057), ('use', 0.056), ('study', 0.054), ('held', 0.054)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 53 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-Tumors, on the left, or on the right?
Introduction: In response to the post The bane of many causes in the context of mobile phone use and brain cancer, Robert Erikson wrote: The true control here is the side of the head of the tumor: same side as phone use or opposite side. If that is the test, the data from the study are scary. Clearly tumors are more likely on the “same” side, at whatever astronomical p value you want to use. That cannot be explained away by misremembering, since an auxiliary study showed misremembering was not biased toward cell phone-tumor consistency. A strong signal in the data pointed by Prof. Erikson is that the tumors are overwhelmingly likelier to appear on the same side of the head as where the phone is held. I’ve converted the ratios into percentages, based on an assumption that the risk for tumors would be apriori equal for both sides of the head. There is a group of people with low-to-moderate exposure and high lateral bias, but the bias does increase quite smoothly with increasing
2 0.43045196 48 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-23-The bane of many causes
Introduction: One of the newsflies buzzing around today is an article “Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study” . The results, shown in this pretty table below, appear to be inconclusive. A limited amount of cellphone radiation is good for your brain, but not too much? It’s unfortunate that the extremes are truncated. The commentary at Microwave News blames bias: The problem with selection bias –also called participation bias– became apparent after the brain tumor risks observed throughout the study were so low as to defy reason. If they reflect reality, they would indicate that cell phones confer immediate protection against tumors. All sides agree that this is extremely unlikely. Further analysis pointed to unanticipated differences between the cases (those with brain tumors) and the controls (the reference group). The second problem concerns how accurately study participants could recall the amount of t
3 0.14386591 1207 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-10-A quick suggestion
Introduction: Next time Stephen Wolfram is on the phone , maybe he could call the head of Human Resources at his company and get this guy fired?
4 0.1328717 1537 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-17-100!
Introduction: Behavioral and Brain Sciences
5 0.1196505 1065 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-17-Read this blog on Google Currents
Introduction: I’ve been told that if you download Google Currents to your iPad or Android device, you get a blog reader that beautifies the posts and makes it look more like a magazine. I don’t have a mobile phone myself but maybe those of you who do, will find this useful.
6 0.10968453 395 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-05-Consulting: how do you figure out what to charge?
7 0.10488276 791 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-08-Censoring on one end, “outliers” on the other, what can we do with the middle?
8 0.10328864 307 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-29-“Texting bans don’t reduce crashes; effects are slight crash increases”
9 0.10043831 21 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-07-Environmentally induced cancer “grossly underestimated”? Doubtful.
10 0.099580325 1231 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-27-Attention pollution
11 0.089782521 2137 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-17-Replication backlash
12 0.087423518 925 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-26-Ethnicity and Population Structure in Personal Naming Networks
13 0.084618323 1766 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-16-“Nightshifts Linked to Increased Risk for Ovarian Cancer”
14 0.082003511 1471 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-27-Why do we never see a full decision analysis for a clinical trial?
15 0.081449442 1796 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-09-The guy behind me on line for the train . . .
16 0.080475822 2097 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-11-Why ask why? Forward causal inference and reverse causal questions
18 0.07849399 2328 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-10-What property is important in a risk prediction model? Discrimination or calibration?
19 0.075130448 2121 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-02-Should personal genetic testing be regulated? Battle of the blogroll
20 0.074728981 490 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-29-Brain Structure and the Big Five
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.121), (1, -0.029), (2, 0.028), (3, -0.052), (4, 0.005), (5, -0.031), (6, 0.019), (7, 0.002), (8, 0.012), (9, -0.007), (10, -0.031), (11, 0.003), (12, 0.032), (13, -0.015), (14, -0.006), (15, 0.044), (16, 0.055), (17, -0.021), (18, 0.004), (19, 0.002), (20, -0.021), (21, 0.003), (22, -0.016), (23, 0.004), (24, -0.006), (25, 0.063), (26, -0.011), (27, -0.027), (28, 0.027), (29, 0.018), (30, -0.044), (31, 0.016), (32, 0.027), (33, 0.024), (34, -0.021), (35, -0.012), (36, 0.045), (37, 0.05), (38, 0.005), (39, 0.027), (40, -0.014), (41, -0.048), (42, 0.026), (43, -0.005), (44, -0.039), (45, -0.002), (46, 0.04), (47, 0.068), (48, 0.012), (49, -0.043)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.93784547 53 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-Tumors, on the left, or on the right?
Introduction: In response to the post The bane of many causes in the context of mobile phone use and brain cancer, Robert Erikson wrote: The true control here is the side of the head of the tumor: same side as phone use or opposite side. If that is the test, the data from the study are scary. Clearly tumors are more likely on the “same” side, at whatever astronomical p value you want to use. That cannot be explained away by misremembering, since an auxiliary study showed misremembering was not biased toward cell phone-tumor consistency. A strong signal in the data pointed by Prof. Erikson is that the tumors are overwhelmingly likelier to appear on the same side of the head as where the phone is held. I’ve converted the ratios into percentages, based on an assumption that the risk for tumors would be apriori equal for both sides of the head. There is a group of people with low-to-moderate exposure and high lateral bias, but the bias does increase quite smoothly with increasing
2 0.8834824 48 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-23-The bane of many causes
Introduction: One of the newsflies buzzing around today is an article “Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study” . The results, shown in this pretty table below, appear to be inconclusive. A limited amount of cellphone radiation is good for your brain, but not too much? It’s unfortunate that the extremes are truncated. The commentary at Microwave News blames bias: The problem with selection bias –also called participation bias– became apparent after the brain tumor risks observed throughout the study were so low as to defy reason. If they reflect reality, they would indicate that cell phones confer immediate protection against tumors. All sides agree that this is extremely unlikely. Further analysis pointed to unanticipated differences between the cases (those with brain tumors) and the controls (the reference group). The second problem concerns how accurately study participants could recall the amount of t
3 0.74114561 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
Introduction: I read this front-page New York Times article and was immediately suspicious. Here’s the story (from reporter Gina Kolata): Could exercise actually be bad for some healthy people? A well-known group of researchers, including one who helped write the scientific paper justifying national guidelines that promote exercise for all, say the answer may be a qualified yes. By analyzing data from six rigorous exercise studies involving 1,687 people, the group found that about 10 percent actually got worse on at least one of the measures related to heart disease: blood pressure and levels of insulin, HDL cholesterol or triglycerides. About 7 percent got worse on at least two measures. And the researchers say they do not know why. “It is bizarre,” said Claude Bouchard, lead author of the paper , published on Wednesday in the journal PLoS One . . . Dr. Michael Lauer, director of the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the lead federal
5 0.70364565 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
7 0.69955367 1766 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-16-“Nightshifts Linked to Increased Risk for Ovarian Cancer”
8 0.69076627 1906 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-19-“Behind a cancer-treatment firm’s rosy survival claims”
9 0.68769228 708 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-12-Improvement of 5 MPG: how many more auto deaths?
10 0.68543631 2049 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-03-On house arrest for p-hacking
11 0.66237819 923 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-24-What is the normal range of values in a medical test?
12 0.65788579 2328 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-10-What property is important in a risk prediction model? Discrimination or calibration?
13 0.65379483 1239 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-01-A randomized trial of the set-point diet
14 0.65344644 284 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-18-Continuing efforts to justify false “death panels” claim
15 0.65037394 1128 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-19-Sharon Begley: Worse than Stephen Jay Gould?
16 0.64965153 314 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-03-Disconnect between drug and medical device approval
17 0.64717084 322 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-06-More on the differences between drugs and medical devices
19 0.64151472 2352 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-29-When you believe in things that you don’t understand
20 0.63538504 526 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-19-“If it saves the life of a single child…” and other nonsense
topicId topicWeight
[(2, 0.021), (4, 0.039), (5, 0.028), (9, 0.035), (14, 0.018), (16, 0.05), (18, 0.01), (21, 0.017), (24, 0.132), (65, 0.017), (86, 0.01), (89, 0.011), (91, 0.217), (99, 0.253)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.93388742 637 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-29-Unfinished business
Introduction: This blog by J. Robert Lennon on abandoned novels made me think of the more general topic of abandoned projects. I seem to recall George V. Higgins writing that he’d written and discarded 14 novels or so before publishing The Friends of Eddie Coyle. I haven’t abandoned any novels but I’ve abandoned lots of research projects (and also have started various projects that there’s no way I’ll finish). If you think about the decisions involved, it really has to be that way. You learn while you’re working on a project whether it’s worth continuing. Sometimes I’ve put in the hard work and pushed a project to completion, published the article, and then I think . . . what was the point? The modal number of citations of our articles is zero, etc.
2 0.92573619 1186 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-27-Confusion from illusory precision
Introduction: When I posted this link to Dean Foster’s rants, some commenters pointed out this linked claim by famed statistician/provacateur Bjorn Lomberg: If [writes Lomborg] you reduce your child’s intake of fruits and vegetables by just 0.03 grams a day (that’s the equivalent of half a grain of rice) when you opt for more expensive organic produce, the total risk of cancer goes up, not down. Omit buying just one apple every 20 years because you have gone organic, and your child is worse off. Let’s unpack Lomborg’s claim. I don’t know anything about the science of pesticides and cancer, but can he really be so sure that the effects are so small as to be comparable to the health effects of eating “just one apple every 20 years”? I can’t believe you could estimate effects to anything like that precision. I can’t believe anyone has such a precise estimate of the health effects of pesticides, and also I can’t believe anyone has such a precise effect of the health effect of eating an app
3 0.91700184 920 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-22-Top 10 blog obsessions
Introduction: I was just thinking about this because we seem to be circling around the same few topics over and over (while occasionally slipping in some new statistical ideas): 10. Wegman 9. Hipmunk 8. Dennis the dentist 7. Freakonomics 6. The difference between significant and non-significant is not itself statistically significant 5. Just use a hierarchical model already! 4. Innumerate journalists who think that presidential elections are just like high school 3. A graph can be pretty but convey essentially no information 2. Stan is coming 1. Clippy! Did I miss anything important?
same-blog 4 0.91205049 53 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-Tumors, on the left, or on the right?
Introduction: In response to the post The bane of many causes in the context of mobile phone use and brain cancer, Robert Erikson wrote: The true control here is the side of the head of the tumor: same side as phone use or opposite side. If that is the test, the data from the study are scary. Clearly tumors are more likely on the “same” side, at whatever astronomical p value you want to use. That cannot be explained away by misremembering, since an auxiliary study showed misremembering was not biased toward cell phone-tumor consistency. A strong signal in the data pointed by Prof. Erikson is that the tumors are overwhelmingly likelier to appear on the same side of the head as where the phone is held. I’ve converted the ratios into percentages, based on an assumption that the risk for tumors would be apriori equal for both sides of the head. There is a group of people with low-to-moderate exposure and high lateral bias, but the bias does increase quite smoothly with increasing
5 0.89382738 1528 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-10-My talk at MIT on Thurs 11 Oct
Introduction: Stan: open-source Bayesian inference Speaker: Andrew Gelman, Columbia University Date: Thursday, October 11 2012 Time: 4:00PM to 5:00PM Location: 32-D507 Host: Polina Golland, CSAIL Contact: Polina Golland, 6172538005, polina@csail.mit.edu Stan ( mc-stan.org ) is an open-source package for obtaining Bayesian inference using the No-U-Turn sampler, a variant of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. We discuss how Stan works and what it can do, the problems that motivated us to write Stan, current challenges, and areas of planned development, including tools for improved generality and usability, more efficient sampling algorithms, and fuller integration of model building, model checking, and model understanding in Bayesian data analysis. P.S. Here’s the talk .
6 0.87811065 736 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-29-Response to “Why Tables Are Really Much Better Than Graphs”
7 0.86460984 1753 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-06-Stan 1.2.0 and RStan 1.2.0
8 0.85985446 476 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-19-Google’s word count statistics viewer
10 0.82854778 48 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-23-The bane of many causes
11 0.82505137 2296 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-19-Index or indicator variables
12 0.81659389 1365 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-04-Question 25 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
13 0.81358874 1358 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-01-Question 22 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
14 0.80870366 1596 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-29-More consulting experiences, this time in computational linguistics
15 0.80615103 2251 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-17-In the best alternative histories, the real world is what’s ultimately real
16 0.79652923 2114 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-26-“Please make fun of this claim”
18 0.79421401 2052 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-05-Give me a ticket for an aeroplane
19 0.79416955 972 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-25-How do you interpret standard errors from a regression fit to the entire population?
20 0.79388702 1362 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-03-Question 24 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys