andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-350 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: There is live debate that will available this week for those that might be interested. The topic: Can early stopped trials result in misleading results of systematic reviews? It’s sponsored by the Cochrane Collaboration and although the level of discussion is often not very technical, it does in my opinion provide a nice window into clinical research and as Tukey might put it “the real uncertainties involved”. (As a disclaimer – I once assigned some reading from this group to my graduate students and they were embarrassed and annoyed at the awkward handling of even minor technical issues – but the statistical research community is not their target audience.) I have a favourite in this debate, and a quick search on co-authors (not me) would likely tip that off to most members of this blog. Here’s the directions kindly supplied by Jonathan Sterne, who will be in the chair. Dear SMG Members, By means of follow up to previous advertisements; the Discussion Meeting:”Can
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 There is live debate that will available this week for those that might be interested. [sent-1, score-0.26]
2 The topic: Can early stopped trials result in misleading results of systematic reviews? [sent-2, score-1.337]
3 It’s sponsored by the Cochrane Collaboration and although the level of discussion is often not very technical, it does in my opinion provide a nice window into clinical research and as Tukey might put it “the real uncertainties involved”. [sent-3, score-0.247]
4 (As a disclaimer – I once assigned some reading from this group to my graduate students and they were embarrassed and annoyed at the awkward handling of even minor technical issues – but the statistical research community is not their target audience. [sent-4, score-0.345]
5 ) I have a favourite in this debate, and a quick search on co-authors (not me) would likely tip that off to most members of this blog. [sent-5, score-0.246]
6 Here’s the directions kindly supplied by Jonathan Sterne, who will be in the chair. [sent-6, score-0.078]
7 Dear SMG Members, By means of follow up to previous advertisements; the Discussion Meeting:”Can early stopped trials result in misleading results of systematic reviews? [sent-7, score-1.407]
8 ” will be broadcast live online (please see attached for further meeting details). [sent-8, score-0.411]
9 00 AM Denver Time (MDT) (US East Coast +2 hours, UK +7, Central European Time plus 8) To watch the meeting live, simply visit: www. [sent-11, score-0.217]
10 Should you have any queries or comments, before or after the meeting please do not hesitate to get in touch. [sent-14, score-0.446]
11 Jonathan Sterne ———————- Jonathan Sterne School of Social and Community Medicine University of Bristol Abstract Can early stopped trials result in misleading results of systematic reviews? [sent-15, score-1.337]
12 The Cochrane Bias Methods Group and Statistical Methods Group are delighted that two leading experts have agreed to present their views and lead a discussion on how review authors should address this issue. [sent-19, score-0.081]
13 Stopping early for benefit: is there a problem, and if so, what is it? [sent-20, score-0.232]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('trials', 0.315), ('sterne', 0.294), ('stopped', 0.282), ('cochrane', 0.268), ('early', 0.232), ('meeting', 0.217), ('reviews', 0.163), ('jonathan', 0.15), ('systematic', 0.147), ('misleading', 0.143), ('debate', 0.135), ('stopping', 0.128), ('live', 0.125), ('results', 0.124), ('october', 0.115), ('clinical', 0.101), ('medicine', 0.101), ('group', 0.097), ('university', 0.095), ('result', 0.094), ('members', 0.094), ('community', 0.09), ('advertisements', 0.089), ('clinician', 0.089), ('technical', 0.085), ('dilemmas', 0.084), ('denver', 0.084), ('favourite', 0.084), ('delighted', 0.081), ('queries', 0.081), ('gordon', 0.078), ('sponsored', 0.078), ('bristol', 0.078), ('goodman', 0.078), ('kindly', 0.078), ('hesitate', 0.075), ('intensive', 0.073), ('disclaimer', 0.073), ('colorado', 0.073), ('please', 0.073), ('hopkins', 0.072), ('johns', 0.072), ('uk', 0.07), ('follow', 0.07), ('broadcast', 0.069), ('mislead', 0.068), ('tip', 0.068), ('uncertainties', 0.068), ('monitoring', 0.067), ('coast', 0.066)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 350 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-18-Subtle statistical issues to be debated on TV.
Introduction: There is live debate that will available this week for those that might be interested. The topic: Can early stopped trials result in misleading results of systematic reviews? It’s sponsored by the Cochrane Collaboration and although the level of discussion is often not very technical, it does in my opinion provide a nice window into clinical research and as Tukey might put it “the real uncertainties involved”. (As a disclaimer – I once assigned some reading from this group to my graduate students and they were embarrassed and annoyed at the awkward handling of even minor technical issues – but the statistical research community is not their target audience.) I have a favourite in this debate, and a quick search on co-authors (not me) would likely tip that off to most members of this blog. Here’s the directions kindly supplied by Jonathan Sterne, who will be in the chair. Dear SMG Members, By means of follow up to previous advertisements; the Discussion Meeting:”Can
2 0.14862421 411 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-13-Ethical concerns in medical trials
Introduction: I just read this article on the treatment of medical volunteers, written by doctor and bioethicist Carl Ellliott. As a statistician who has done a small amount of consulting for pharmaceutical companies, I have a slightly different perspective. As a doctor, Elliott focuses on individual patients, whereas, as a statistician, I’ve been trained to focus on the goal of accurately estimate treatment effects. I’ll go through Elliott’s article and give my reactions. Elliott: In Miami, investigative reporters for Bloomberg Markets magazine discovered that a contract research organisation called SFBC International was testing drugs on undocumented immigrants in a rundown motel; since that report, the motel has been demolished for fire and safety violations. . . . SFBC had recently been named one of the best small businesses in America by Forbes magazine. The Holiday Inn testing facility was the largest in North America, and had been operating for nearly ten years before inspecto
3 0.11300553 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
Introduction: As someone who relies strongly on survey research, it’s good for me to be reminded that some surveys are useful, some are useless, but one thing they almost all have in common is . . . they waste the respondents’ time. I thought of this after receiving the following email, which I shall reproduce here. My own comments appear after. Recently, you received an email from a student asking for 10 minutes of your time to discuss your Ph.D. program (the body of the email appears below). We are emailing you today to debrief you on the actual purpose of that email, as it was part of a research study. We sincerely hope our study did not cause you any disruption and we apologize if you were at all inconvenienced. Our hope is that this letter will provide a sufficient explanation of the purpose and design of our study to alleviate any concerns you may have about your involvement. We want to thank you for your time and for reading further if you are interested in understanding why you rece
4 0.10827702 2210 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-13-Stopping rules and Bayesian analysis
Introduction: I happened to receive two questions about stopping rules on the same day. First, from Tom Cunningham: I’ve been arguing with my colleagues about whether the stopping rule is relevant (a presenter disclosed that he went out to collect more data because the first experiment didn’t get significant results) — and I believe you have some qualifications to the Bayesian irrelevance argument but I don’t properly understand them. Then, from Benjamin Kay: I have a question that may be of interest for your blog. I was reading about the early history of AIDS and learned that the the trial of AZT was ended early because it was so effective : The trial reported in the New England Journal of medicine, had produced a dramatic result. Before the planned 24 week duration of the study, after a mean period of participation of about 120 days, nineteen participants receiving placebo had died while there was only a single death among those receiving AZT. This appeared to be a momentous break
5 0.10452613 453 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-07-Biostatistics via Pragmatic and Perceptive Bayes.
Introduction: This conference touches nicely on many of the more Biostatistics related topics that have come up on this blog from a pragmatic and perceptive Bayesian perspective. Fourth Annual Bayesian Biostatistics Conference Including the star of that recent Cochrane TV debate who will be the key note speaker. See here Subtle statistical issues to be debated on TV. and perhaps the last comment which is my personal take on that debate. Reruns are still available here http://justin.tv/cochranetv/b/272278382 K?
6 0.098443672 788 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-06-Early stopping and penalized likelihood
7 0.090510875 2239 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-09-Reviewing the peer review process?
9 0.084412798 938 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-03-Comparing prediction errors
10 0.083327569 836 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-03-Another plagiarism mystery
11 0.08327055 1483 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-04-“Bestselling Author Caught Posting Positive Reviews of His Own Work on Amazon”
12 0.081940532 233 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-25-Lauryn Hill update
13 0.079771765 1163 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-12-Meta-analysis, game theory, and incentives to do replicable research
14 0.079616591 1942 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-17-“Stop and frisk” statistics
15 0.076449916 2171 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-13-Postdoc with Liz Stuart on propensity score methods when the covariates are measured with error
16 0.07614851 1202 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-08-Between and within-Krugman correlation
17 0.073015302 1081 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Statistical ethics violation
18 0.072213635 826 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-27-The Statistics Forum!
19 0.071769834 963 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-18-Question on Type M errors
20 0.070973575 2293 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-16-Looking for Bayesian expertise in India, for the purpose of analysis of sarcoma trials
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.12), (1, -0.044), (2, -0.028), (3, -0.058), (4, -0.009), (5, 0.048), (6, -0.035), (7, 0.003), (8, -0.052), (9, 0.01), (10, -0.002), (11, -0.003), (12, 0.031), (13, 0.001), (14, -0.006), (15, -0.008), (16, 0.019), (17, 0.001), (18, 0.026), (19, 0.018), (20, 0.019), (21, 0.01), (22, 0.004), (23, -0.029), (24, 0.02), (25, -0.003), (26, 0.023), (27, -0.004), (28, 0.02), (29, 0.028), (30, -0.076), (31, 0.021), (32, -0.011), (33, 0.043), (34, -0.014), (35, -0.022), (36, -0.021), (37, -0.007), (38, 0.071), (39, 0.011), (40, 0.021), (41, -0.011), (42, -0.005), (43, -0.012), (44, 0.026), (45, -0.018), (46, -0.0), (47, -0.032), (48, -0.002), (49, 0.048)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97511327 350 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-18-Subtle statistical issues to be debated on TV.
Introduction: There is live debate that will available this week for those that might be interested. The topic: Can early stopped trials result in misleading results of systematic reviews? It’s sponsored by the Cochrane Collaboration and although the level of discussion is often not very technical, it does in my opinion provide a nice window into clinical research and as Tukey might put it “the real uncertainties involved”. (As a disclaimer – I once assigned some reading from this group to my graduate students and they were embarrassed and annoyed at the awkward handling of even minor technical issues – but the statistical research community is not their target audience.) I have a favourite in this debate, and a quick search on co-authors (not me) would likely tip that off to most members of this blog. Here’s the directions kindly supplied by Jonathan Sterne, who will be in the chair. Dear SMG Members, By means of follow up to previous advertisements; the Discussion Meeting:”Can
2 0.74108595 1163 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-12-Meta-analysis, game theory, and incentives to do replicable research
Introduction: One of the key insights of game theory is to solve problems in reverse time order. You first figure out what you would do in the endgame, then decide a middle-game strategy to get you where you want to be at the end, then you choose an opening that will take you on your desired path. All conditional on what the other players do in their turn. In an article from 1989, “Meta-analysis in medical research: Strong encouragement for higher quality in individual research efforts,” Keith O’Rourke and Allan Detsky apply this principle to the process of publication of scientific research: From the statistical point of view, there really is no escape from performing a de facto meta-analysis. One can either judge the effectiveness of a therapy based solely on the most recent study and ignore all previous studies, a method which is equivalent to giving the most recent study weight 1.Oand all previous studies weight 0, or try to choose the weights on some scientific basis . . . If impo
3 0.73837221 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
Introduction: As someone who relies strongly on survey research, it’s good for me to be reminded that some surveys are useful, some are useless, but one thing they almost all have in common is . . . they waste the respondents’ time. I thought of this after receiving the following email, which I shall reproduce here. My own comments appear after. Recently, you received an email from a student asking for 10 minutes of your time to discuss your Ph.D. program (the body of the email appears below). We are emailing you today to debrief you on the actual purpose of that email, as it was part of a research study. We sincerely hope our study did not cause you any disruption and we apologize if you were at all inconvenienced. Our hope is that this letter will provide a sufficient explanation of the purpose and design of our study to alleviate any concerns you may have about your involvement. We want to thank you for your time and for reading further if you are interested in understanding why you rece
4 0.70503563 2239 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-09-Reviewing the peer review process?
Introduction: I received the following email: Dear Colleague, Recently we informed you about SciRev, our new website where researchers can share their experiences with the peer review process and select an efficient journal for submitting their work. Since our start, we already received over 500 reviews and many positive reactions, which reveal a great need for comparable information on duration and quality of the review process. All reviews are publicly available on our website, both at the pages of the journals and in an overview at www.scirev.sc/reviews To make this venture a success, many reviews are needed. We therefore would appreciate it very much if you could take a few minutes to visit our website www.SciRev.sc and share your recent review experiences with your colleagues. SciRev also offers you the possibility to create a free account where you can administer your manuscripts under review and create a personal journal list. Thanks on behalf of the research community, Jan
5 0.70260775 882 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-31-Meanwhile, on the sister blog . . .
Introduction: NYT columnist Douthat asks: Should we be disturbed that a leading presidential candidate endorses a pro-slavery position? Who’s on the web? And where are they? Sowell, Carlson, Barone: fools, knaves, or simply victims of a cognitive illusion? Don’t blame the American public for the D.C. deadlock Calvin College update Help reform the Institutional Review Board (IRB) system! Powerful credit-rating agencies are a creation of the government . . . what does it mean when they bite the hand that feeds them? “Waiting for a landslide” A simple theory of why Obama didn’t come out fighting in 2009 A modest proposal Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Family Research Council and the Barnard Center for Research on Women Sleazy data miners Genetic essentialism is in our genes Wow, that was a lot! No wonder I don’t get any research done…
6 0.69991744 411 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-13-Ethical concerns in medical trials
7 0.68485379 1959 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-28-50 shades of gray: A research story
8 0.68310672 866 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-23-Participate in a research project on combining information for prediction
9 0.67951602 1618 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-11-The consulting biz
10 0.65486062 1922 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-02-They want me to send them free material and pay for the privilege
11 0.64478594 113 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-28-Advocacy in the form of a “deliberative forum”
12 0.6332503 660 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-14-Job opening at NIH for an experienced statistician
13 0.6326493 2113 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-25-Postdoc position on psychometrics and network modeling
14 0.63035011 1111 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-10-The blog of the Cultural Cognition Project
16 0.62402433 1539 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-18-IRB nightmares
17 0.62296563 35 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-16-Another update on the spam email study
18 0.62214321 2220 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-22-Quickies
19 0.62179154 2301 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-22-Ticket to Baaaaarf
20 0.62165201 989 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-03-This post does not mention Wegman
topicId topicWeight
[(2, 0.02), (5, 0.018), (15, 0.072), (16, 0.035), (18, 0.012), (21, 0.018), (22, 0.014), (24, 0.138), (30, 0.014), (44, 0.013), (47, 0.014), (51, 0.098), (53, 0.019), (76, 0.027), (86, 0.012), (89, 0.013), (90, 0.012), (96, 0.015), (99, 0.288)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96981609 350 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-18-Subtle statistical issues to be debated on TV.
Introduction: There is live debate that will available this week for those that might be interested. The topic: Can early stopped trials result in misleading results of systematic reviews? It’s sponsored by the Cochrane Collaboration and although the level of discussion is often not very technical, it does in my opinion provide a nice window into clinical research and as Tukey might put it “the real uncertainties involved”. (As a disclaimer – I once assigned some reading from this group to my graduate students and they were embarrassed and annoyed at the awkward handling of even minor technical issues – but the statistical research community is not their target audience.) I have a favourite in this debate, and a quick search on co-authors (not me) would likely tip that off to most members of this blog. Here’s the directions kindly supplied by Jonathan Sterne, who will be in the chair. Dear SMG Members, By means of follow up to previous advertisements; the Discussion Meeting:”Can
2 0.96978116 1594 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-28-My talk on statistical graphics at Mit this Thurs aft
Introduction: Infovis and Statistical Graphics: Different Goals, Different Looks (and here’s the article) Speaker: Andrew Gelman, Columbia University Date: Thursday, November 29 2012 Time: 4:00PM to 5:00PM Location: 32-D463 (Star Conference Room) Host: Polina Golland, CSAIL Contact: Polina Golland, 6172538005, polina@csail.mit.edu The importance of graphical displays in statistical practice has been recognized sporadically in the statistical literature over the past century, with wider awareness following Tukey’s Exploratory Data Analysis (1977) and Tufte’s books in the succeeding decades. But statistical graphics still occupies an awkward in-between position: Within statistics, exploratory and graphical methods represent a minor subfield and are not well-integrated with larger themes of modeling and inference. Outside of statistics, infographics (also called information visualization or Infovis) is huge, but their purveyors and enthusiasts appear largely to be uninterested in statisti
3 0.9542858 1641 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-27-The Möbius strip, or, marketing that is impervious to criticism
Introduction: Johnny Carson had this great trick where, after a joke bombed, he’d do such a good double-take that he’d end up getting a huge laugh. This gimmick could never have worked as his sole shtick—at some point, Johnny had to tell some good jokes—but it was a reliable way to limit the downside. For the purpose of our discussion here, the point is that, even when the joke failed, Carson had a way out. I thought of this today after following a link from a commenter that led to this blog on publicity-minded author Tim Ferriss. I’ve never read anything by Ferriss but I’ve read about him on occasion: his gimmick is he promotes his book using ingenious marketing strategies. Sort of like how Madonna is famous for being famous, and Paris Hilton is famous for being famous for being famous, Ferriss is famous for self-promotion. Matt Metzgar writes : I [Metzgar] saw a bunch of ads on the internet today for Tim Ferriss’ new book. Even though the book was released today, it already has all
4 0.95278043 902 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-The importance of style in academic writing
Introduction: In my comments on academic cheating , I briefly discussed the question of how some of these papers could’ve been published in the first place, given that they tend to be of low quality. (It’s rare that people plagiarize the good stuff, and, when they do—for example when a senior scholar takes credit for a junior researcher’s contributions without giving proper credit—there’s not always a paper trail, and there can be legitimate differences of opinion about the relative contributions of the participants.) Anyway, to get back to the cases at hand: how did these rulebreakers get published in the first place? The question here is not how did they get away with cheating but how is it that top journals were publishing mediocre research? In the case of the profs who falsified data (Diederik Stapel) or did not follow scientific protocol (Mark Hauser), the answer is clear: By cheating, they were able to get the sort of too-good-to-be-true results which, if they were true, would be
5 0.94571829 1147 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-30-Statistical Murder
Introduction: Image via Wikipedia Robert Zubrin writes in “How Much Is an Astronaut’s Life Worth?” ( Reason , Feb 2012 ): …policy analyst John D. Graham and his colleagues at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found in 1997 that the median cost for lifesaving expenditures and regulations by the U.S. government in the health care, residential, transportation, and occupational areas ranges from about $1 million to $3 million spent per life saved in today’s dollars. The only marked exception to this pattern occurs in the area of environmental health protection (such as the Superfund program) which costs about $200 million per life saved. Graham and his colleagues call the latter kind of inefficiency “ statistical murder ,” since thousands of additional lives could be saved each year if the money were used more cost-effectively. To avoid such deadly waste, the Department of Transportation has a policy of rejecting any proposed safety expenditure that costs more than $3
6 0.94541299 744 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-03-Statistical methods for healthcare regulation: rating, screening and surveillance
7 0.94352627 2342 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-21-Models with constraints
8 0.94127929 803 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-14-Subtleties with measurement-error models for the evaluation of wacky claims
9 0.94119644 1848 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-09-A tale of two discussion papers
10 0.94064218 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
11 0.94045466 1779 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-27-“Two Dogmas of Strong Objective Bayesianism”
12 0.94043893 1683 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-19-“Confirmation, on the other hand, is not sexy”
14 0.94005477 2013 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-08-What we need here is some peer review for statistical graphics
15 0.94002604 1543 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-21-Model complexity as a function of sample size
16 0.93948269 431 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-26-One fun thing about physicists . . .
17 0.9392302 1395 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-27-Cross-validation (What is it good for?)
18 0.93787611 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
19 0.93758893 2353 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog