andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-388 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Bruce McCullough writes: The Sept 2009 issue of Wired had a big article on the increase in the placebo effect, and why it’s been getting bigger. Kaiser Fung has a synopsis . As if you don’t have enough to do, I thought you might be interested in blogging on this. My reply: I thought Kaiser’s discussion was good, especially this point: Effect on treatment group = Effect of the drug + effect of belief in being treated Effect on placebo group = Effect of belief in being treated Thus, the difference between the two groups = effect of the drug, since the effect of belief in being treated affects both groups of patients. Thus, as Kaiser puts it, if the treatment isn’t doing better than placebo, it doesn’t say that the placebo effect is big (let alone “too big”) but that the treatment isn’t showing any additional effect. It’s “treatment + placebo” vs. placebo, not treatment vs. placebo. That said, I’d prefer for Kaiser to make it clear that the additivity he’s assu
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Bruce McCullough writes: The Sept 2009 issue of Wired had a big article on the increase in the placebo effect, and why it’s been getting bigger. [sent-1, score-0.565]
2 As if you don’t have enough to do, I thought you might be interested in blogging on this. [sent-3, score-0.108]
3 Thus, as Kaiser puts it, if the treatment isn’t doing better than placebo, it doesn’t say that the placebo effect is big (let alone “too big”) but that the treatment isn’t showing any additional effect. [sent-5, score-1.522]
4 That said, I’d prefer for Kaiser to make it clear that the additivity he’s assuming is just that–an assumption. [sent-9, score-0.227]
5 Like Kaiser, I don’t know much about pharma in particular, but like Kaiser, I feel that the assumption of additivity is a reasonable starting point. [sent-10, score-0.452]
6 I just think it would be clearer to frame this as a battle of assumptions (much as in Rubin’s discussion of Lord’s Paradox). [sent-11, score-0.265]
7 I also agree with Kaiser that the scientific questions about placebos are interesting. [sent-12, score-0.214]
8 As in much medical research, it’s frustrating how the ground seems to keep shifting and how little seems to be known. [sent-13, score-0.514]
9 Or, to put it another way, a lot is known–lots of studies have been done–but nothing seems to be known with much certainty. [sent-14, score-0.218]
10 There are few pillars of knowledge to hold on to, even in a field such as placebos that has been studied for so many decades. [sent-15, score-0.325]
11 Also, as Kaiser points out, the waters can be muddied by the huge financial conflicts of interests involved in medical research. [sent-16, score-0.513]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('placebo', 0.48), ('kaiser', 0.46), ('effect', 0.285), ('treatment', 0.227), ('placebos', 0.214), ('treated', 0.181), ('additivity', 0.176), ('belief', 0.169), ('drug', 0.12), ('pharma', 0.107), ('muddied', 0.107), ('waters', 0.107), ('medical', 0.099), ('lord', 0.093), ('sept', 0.093), ('groups', 0.093), ('conflicts', 0.09), ('wired', 0.09), ('bruce', 0.088), ('known', 0.087), ('big', 0.085), ('shifting', 0.083), ('group', 0.077), ('battle', 0.076), ('affects', 0.073), ('thus', 0.072), ('isn', 0.072), ('frame', 0.069), ('ground', 0.068), ('clearer', 0.068), ('frustrating', 0.067), ('seems', 0.066), ('much', 0.065), ('fung', 0.065), ('paradox', 0.063), ('alone', 0.06), ('interests', 0.059), ('studied', 0.058), ('puts', 0.058), ('rubin', 0.056), ('blogging', 0.055), ('assumption', 0.054), ('hold', 0.053), ('thought', 0.053), ('discussion', 0.052), ('assuming', 0.051), ('financial', 0.051), ('additional', 0.051), ('starting', 0.05), ('showing', 0.049)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 388 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-01-The placebo effect in pharma
Introduction: Bruce McCullough writes: The Sept 2009 issue of Wired had a big article on the increase in the placebo effect, and why it’s been getting bigger. Kaiser Fung has a synopsis . As if you don’t have enough to do, I thought you might be interested in blogging on this. My reply: I thought Kaiser’s discussion was good, especially this point: Effect on treatment group = Effect of the drug + effect of belief in being treated Effect on placebo group = Effect of belief in being treated Thus, the difference between the two groups = effect of the drug, since the effect of belief in being treated affects both groups of patients. Thus, as Kaiser puts it, if the treatment isn’t doing better than placebo, it doesn’t say that the placebo effect is big (let alone “too big”) but that the treatment isn’t showing any additional effect. It’s “treatment + placebo” vs. placebo, not treatment vs. placebo. That said, I’d prefer for Kaiser to make it clear that the additivity he’s assu
2 0.27227205 648 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-04-The Case for More False Positives in Anti-doping Testing
Introduction: No joke. See here (from Kaiser Fung). At the Statistics Forum.
3 0.24164431 2031 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-19-What makes a statistician look like a hero?
Introduction: Answer here (courtesy of Kaiser Fung).
4 0.21747169 543 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-28-NYT shills for personal DNA tests
Introduction: Kaiser nails it . The offending article , by John Tierney, somehow ended up in the Science section rather than the Opinion section. As an opinion piece (or, for that matter, a blog), Tierney’s article would be nothing special. But I agree with Kaiser that it doesn’t work as a newspaper article. As Kaiser notes, this story involves a bunch of statistical and empirical claims that are not well resolved by P.R. and rhetoric.
5 0.2100497 2186 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-26-Infoviz on top of stat graphic on top of spreadsheet
Introduction: Kaiser points to this infoviz from MIT’s Technology Review: Kaiser writes: What makes the designer want to tilt the reader’s head? This chart is unreadable. It also fails the self-sufficiency test. All 13 data points are printed onto the chart. You really don’t need the axis, and the gridlines. A further design flaw is the use of signposts. Our eyes are drawn to the hexagons containing the brand icons but the data is at the other end of the signpost, where it is planted on the surface! Here is a sketch of something not as cute: I [Kaiser] expressed time as years . . . The mobile-related entities are labelled red. The dots could be replaced by the hexagonal brand icons. I agree with all of Kaiser’s criticisms, and I agree that his graph is, from the statistical perspective, a zillion times better than what was published. On the other hand, unusual images can get attention. Recall the famous/notorious clock plot from Florence Nightingale . This is why I’ve move
6 0.20322111 1001 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-10-Three hours in the life of a statistician
7 0.19985096 1132 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-21-A counterfeit data graphic
8 0.16686285 461 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-09-“‘Why work?’”
9 0.1468109 2 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-23-Modeling heterogenous treatment effects
10 0.14505346 7 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-27-Should Mister P be allowed-encouraged to reside in counter-factual populations?
11 0.14110182 803 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-14-Subtleties with measurement-error models for the evaluation of wacky claims
12 0.13992245 1607 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-05-The p-value is not . . .
13 0.13892341 2288 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-10-Small multiples of lineplots > maps (ok, not always, but yes in this case)
14 0.12973841 982 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-30-“There’s at least as much as an 80 percent chance . . .”
15 0.1261996 1090 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-28-“. . . extending for dozens of pages”
16 0.12237343 2210 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-13-Stopping rules and Bayesian analysis
17 0.12074935 344 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-Story time
18 0.11927647 1223 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-20-A kaleidoscope of responses to Dubner’s criticisms of our criticisms of Freaknomics
19 0.11878312 209 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-16-EdLab at Columbia’s Teachers’ College
20 0.11699428 2121 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-02-Should personal genetic testing be regulated? Battle of the blogroll
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.14), (1, -0.021), (2, 0.021), (3, -0.085), (4, 0.015), (5, -0.076), (6, -0.002), (7, 0.066), (8, 0.046), (9, 0.039), (10, -0.121), (11, -0.028), (12, 0.059), (13, -0.027), (14, -0.05), (15, -0.027), (16, -0.11), (17, 0.21), (18, 0.012), (19, 0.073), (20, -0.034), (21, 0.036), (22, -0.029), (23, -0.115), (24, -0.027), (25, 0.063), (26, -0.025), (27, 0.004), (28, -0.067), (29, 0.085), (30, -0.061), (31, -0.108), (32, 0.031), (33, 0.141), (34, 0.035), (35, -0.099), (36, -0.0), (37, -0.086), (38, -0.02), (39, -0.069), (40, -0.041), (41, 0.13), (42, -0.0), (43, -0.029), (44, 0.048), (45, 0.06), (46, 0.043), (47, -0.006), (48, -0.026), (49, 0.033)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96936464 388 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-01-The placebo effect in pharma
Introduction: Bruce McCullough writes: The Sept 2009 issue of Wired had a big article on the increase in the placebo effect, and why it’s been getting bigger. Kaiser Fung has a synopsis . As if you don’t have enough to do, I thought you might be interested in blogging on this. My reply: I thought Kaiser’s discussion was good, especially this point: Effect on treatment group = Effect of the drug + effect of belief in being treated Effect on placebo group = Effect of belief in being treated Thus, the difference between the two groups = effect of the drug, since the effect of belief in being treated affects both groups of patients. Thus, as Kaiser puts it, if the treatment isn’t doing better than placebo, it doesn’t say that the placebo effect is big (let alone “too big”) but that the treatment isn’t showing any additional effect. It’s “treatment + placebo” vs. placebo, not treatment vs. placebo. That said, I’d prefer for Kaiser to make it clear that the additivity he’s assu
2 0.83999187 2031 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-19-What makes a statistician look like a hero?
Introduction: Answer here (courtesy of Kaiser Fung).
3 0.83686036 543 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-28-NYT shills for personal DNA tests
Introduction: Kaiser nails it . The offending article , by John Tierney, somehow ended up in the Science section rather than the Opinion section. As an opinion piece (or, for that matter, a blog), Tierney’s article would be nothing special. But I agree with Kaiser that it doesn’t work as a newspaper article. As Kaiser notes, this story involves a bunch of statistical and empirical claims that are not well resolved by P.R. and rhetoric.
4 0.80827147 1001 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-10-Three hours in the life of a statistician
Introduction: Kaiser Fung tells what it’s really like . Here’s a sample: As soon as I [Kaiser] put the substring-concatenate expression together with two lines of code that generate data tables, it choked. Sorta like Dashiell Hammett without the broads and the heaters. And here’s another take, from a slightly different perspective.
5 0.77389473 1256 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-10-Our data visualization panel at the New York Public Library
Introduction: In case you couldn’t come to our panel (with Kaiser Fung, Mark Hansen, Tahir Hemphill, Manuel Lima, and Jonathan Stray, and organized by Isabel Draves), here’s the video:
6 0.77199167 1132 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-21-A counterfeit data graphic
7 0.71040839 1174 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-18-Not as ugly as you look
8 0.68340212 461 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-09-“‘Why work?’”
9 0.67712295 2121 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-02-Should personal genetic testing be regulated? Battle of the blogroll
10 0.67209494 2186 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-26-Infoviz on top of stat graphic on top of spreadsheet
11 0.65610224 742 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-02-Grouponomics, counterfactuals, and opportunity cost
12 0.63212001 982 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-30-“There’s at least as much as an 80 percent chance . . .”
13 0.63034838 985 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-01-Doug Schoen has 2 poll reports
14 0.60695881 1612 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-08-The Case for More False Positives in Anti-doping Testing
15 0.60449898 344 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-Story time
16 0.60167247 238 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-27-No radon lobby
17 0.60079938 1246 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-04-Data visualization panel at the New York Public Library this evening!
18 0.59558344 648 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-04-The Case for More False Positives in Anti-doping Testing
19 0.57941145 1090 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-28-“. . . extending for dozens of pages”
20 0.53306991 2288 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-10-Small multiples of lineplots > maps (ok, not always, but yes in this case)
topicId topicWeight
[(5, 0.025), (15, 0.038), (16, 0.041), (21, 0.017), (24, 0.207), (34, 0.075), (35, 0.2), (48, 0.011), (77, 0.022), (87, 0.01), (93, 0.01), (95, 0.028), (99, 0.197)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.90843588 388 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-01-The placebo effect in pharma
Introduction: Bruce McCullough writes: The Sept 2009 issue of Wired had a big article on the increase in the placebo effect, and why it’s been getting bigger. Kaiser Fung has a synopsis . As if you don’t have enough to do, I thought you might be interested in blogging on this. My reply: I thought Kaiser’s discussion was good, especially this point: Effect on treatment group = Effect of the drug + effect of belief in being treated Effect on placebo group = Effect of belief in being treated Thus, the difference between the two groups = effect of the drug, since the effect of belief in being treated affects both groups of patients. Thus, as Kaiser puts it, if the treatment isn’t doing better than placebo, it doesn’t say that the placebo effect is big (let alone “too big”) but that the treatment isn’t showing any additional effect. It’s “treatment + placebo” vs. placebo, not treatment vs. placebo. That said, I’d prefer for Kaiser to make it clear that the additivity he’s assu
2 0.87937725 1130 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-20-Prior beliefs about locations of decision boundaries
Introduction: Forest Gregg writes: I want to incorporate a prior belief into an estimation of a logistic regression classifier of points distributed in a 2d space. My prior belief is a funny kind of prior though. It’s a belief about where the decision boundary between classes should fall. Over the 2d space, I lay a grid, and I believe that a decision boundary that separates any two classes should fall along any of the grid line with some probablity, and that the decision boundary should fall anywhere except a gridline with a much lower probability. For the two class case, and a logistic regression model parameterized by W and data X, my prior could perhaps be expressed Pr(W) = (normalizing constant)/exp(d) where d = f(grid,W,X) such that when logistic(W^TX)= .5 and X is ‘far’ from grid lines, then d is large. Have you ever seen a model like this, or do you have any notions about a good avenue to pursue? My real data consist of geocoded Craigslist’s postings that are labeled with the
3 0.8721776 473 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-17-Why a bonobo won’t play poker with you
Introduction: Sciencedaily has posted an article titled Apes Unwilling to Gamble When Odds Are Uncertain : The apes readily distinguished between the different probabilities of winning: they gambled a lot when there was a 100 percent chance, less when there was a 50 percent chance, and only rarely when there was no chance In some trials, however, the experimenter didn’t remove a lid from the bowl, so the apes couldn’t assess the likelihood of winning a banana The odds from the covered bowl were identical to those from the risky option: a 50 percent chance of getting the much sought-after banana. But apes of both species were less likely to choose this ambiguous option. Like humans, they showed “ambiguity aversion” — preferring to gamble more when they knew the odds than when they didn’t. Given some of the other differences between chimps and bonobos, Hare and Rosati had expected to find the bonobos to be more averse to ambiguity, but that didn’t turn out to be the case. Thanks to Sta
4 0.86290461 837 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-04-Is it rational to vote?
Introduction: Hear me interviewed on the topic here . P.S. The interview was fine but I don’t agree with everything on the linked website. For example, this bit: Global warming is not the first case of a widespread fear based on incomplete knowledge turned out to be false or at least greatly exaggerated. Global warming has many of the characteristics of a popular delusion, an irrational fear or cause that is embraced by millions of people because, well, it is believed by millions of people! All right, then.
5 0.86111432 1443 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-04-Bayesian Learning via Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics
Introduction: Burak Bayramli writes: In this paper by Sunjin Ahn, Anoop Korattikara, and Max Welling and this paper by Welling and Yee Whye The, there are some arguments on big data and the use of MCMC. Both papers have suggested improvements to speed up MCMC computations. I was wondering what your thoughts were, especially on this paragraph: When a dataset has a billion data-cases (as is not uncommon these days) MCMC algorithms will not even have generated a single (burn-in) sample when a clever learning algorithm based on stochastic gradients may already be making fairly good predictions. In fact, the intriguing results of Bottou and Bousquet (2008) seem to indicate that in terms of “number of bits learned per unit of computation”, an algorithm as simple as stochastic gradient descent is almost optimally efficient. We therefore argue that for Bayesian methods to remain useful in an age when the datasets grow at an exponential rate, they need to embrace the ideas of the stochastic optimiz
6 0.85853577 2049 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-03-On house arrest for p-hacking
7 0.83262956 1926 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-05-More plain old everyday Bayesianism
9 0.82698792 1516 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-30-Computational problems with glm etc.
10 0.82612246 942 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-04-45% hitting, 25% fielding, 25% pitching, and 100% not telling us how they did it
11 0.81420529 296 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-26-A simple semigraphic display
12 0.80973577 936 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-02-Covariate Adjustment in RCT - Model Overfitting in Multilevel Regression
13 0.80472982 1283 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-26-Let’s play “Guess the smoother”!
14 0.80407202 881 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-30-Rickey Henderson and Peter Angelos, together again
15 0.80108851 1144 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-29-How many parameters are in a multilevel model?
16 0.80024934 929 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-27-Visual diagnostics for discrete-data regressions
17 0.79495478 197 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-10-The last great essayist?
19 0.79409564 1455 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-12-Probabilistic screening to get an approximate self-weighted sample
20 0.79326582 278 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-15-Advice that might make sense for individuals but is negative-sum overall