andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-1081 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: A colleague writes: When I was in NYC I went to this party by group of Japanese bio-scientists. There, one guy told me about how the biggest pharmaceutical company in Japan did their statistics. They ran 100 different tests and reported the most significant one. (This was in 2006 and he said they stopped doing this few years back so they were doing this until pretty recently…) I’m not sure if this was 100 multiple comparison or 100 different kinds of test but I’m sure they wouldn’t want to disclose their data… Ouch!
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 A colleague writes: When I was in NYC I went to this party by group of Japanese bio-scientists. [sent-1, score-0.585]
2 There, one guy told me about how the biggest pharmaceutical company in Japan did their statistics. [sent-2, score-0.962]
3 They ran 100 different tests and reported the most significant one. [sent-3, score-0.741]
4 (This was in 2006 and he said they stopped doing this few years back so they were doing this until pretty recently…) I’m not sure if this was 100 multiple comparison or 100 different kinds of test but I’m sure they wouldn’t want to disclose their data… Ouch! [sent-4, score-2.008]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('disclose', 0.32), ('ouch', 0.306), ('pharmaceutical', 0.273), ('japan', 0.267), ('japanese', 0.262), ('nyc', 0.216), ('stopped', 0.215), ('biggest', 0.211), ('kinds', 0.2), ('ran', 0.181), ('colleague', 0.172), ('company', 0.17), ('sure', 0.161), ('party', 0.158), ('comparison', 0.149), ('reported', 0.149), ('tests', 0.149), ('told', 0.137), ('guy', 0.137), ('different', 0.134), ('went', 0.132), ('multiple', 0.129), ('significant', 0.128), ('test', 0.126), ('group', 0.123), ('wouldn', 0.119), ('recently', 0.107), ('said', 0.096), ('back', 0.09), ('pretty', 0.083), ('years', 0.074), ('want', 0.07), ('writes', 0.051), ('data', 0.046), ('one', 0.034)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1081 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Statistical ethics violation
Introduction: A colleague writes: When I was in NYC I went to this party by group of Japanese bio-scientists. There, one guy told me about how the biggest pharmaceutical company in Japan did their statistics. They ran 100 different tests and reported the most significant one. (This was in 2006 and he said they stopped doing this few years back so they were doing this until pretty recently…) I’m not sure if this was 100 multiple comparison or 100 different kinds of test but I’m sure they wouldn’t want to disclose their data… Ouch!
2 0.11153179 1787 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-04-Wanna be the next Tyler Cowen? It’s not as easy as you might think!
Introduction: Someone told me he ran into someone who said his goal was to be Tyler Cowen. OK, fine, it’s a worthy goal, but I don’t think it’s so easy .
Introduction: Matt Taibbi writes : Glenn Hubbard, Leading Academic and Mitt Romney Advisor, Took $1200 an Hour to Be Countrywide’s Expert Witness . . . Hidden among the reams of material recently filed in connection with the lawsuit of monoline insurer MBIA against Bank of America and Countrywide is a deposition of none other than Columbia University’s Glenn Hubbard. . . . Hubbard testified on behalf of Countrywide in the MBIA suit. He conducted an “analysis” that essentially concluded that Countrywide’s loans weren’t any worse than the loans produced by other mortgage originators, and that therefore the monstrous losses that investors in those loans suffered were due to other factors related to the economic crisis – and not caused by the serial misrepresentations and fraud in Countrywide’s underwriting. That’s interesting, because I worked on the other side of this case! I was hired by MBIA’s lawyers. It wouldn’t be polite of me to reveal my consulting rate, and I never actually got depose
Introduction: Stuart Hurlbert writes: A colleague recently forwarded to me your 2012 paper with Hill and Yajima on the multiple comparison “non-problem”, as I call it. You and your colleagues might find of interest a 2012 paper [with Celia Lombardi] that reaches similar conclusions by a colleague and myself which is attached. Similar but not identical, as we are a bit Bayesian-shy after seeing so many exaggerated claims made for Bayesian approaches over recent decades. I take pride in having for a few decades defended many colleagues against editors (and many graduate students against faculty members) who demanded “corrections” for multiple comparisons. We’ve gotten no small number of editors and professors to back off their unreasonable demands. Paper tigers all! My reply: I agree that those lopsided tests are too-clever-by-half. I think a lot of statistical methods have this flavor, that they are a solution to a mathematical problem that has been posed without a careful enough se
5 0.09557759 2323 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-07-Cause he thinks he’s so-phisticated
Introduction: This story (“Yale tells students to keep Kissinger talk secret . . . ‘Dr. Kissinger’s visit to campus will not be publicized, so we appreciate your confidentiality…’”) reminds me of two things: - In the 1980s, I once went to a public lecture at Harvard by Kissinger protogé Ted Koppel, who indeed has that deep Ted Koppel voice even when he’s just chatting (as I overheard). Koppel insisted that the contents of his talk not be reported. It was no great loss; he didn’t really have anything newsworthy to say. The talk was fine, he told us some interesting things, just nothing that would’ve made the news or even the campus newspaper. Still, it seemed kinda tacky for a reporter whose shtick was access to the powerful, to not want his own speech to be reported. - In the 1990s, a colleague of mine in a different dept told us that this professor from another university was coming by to give a lecture. I told my colleague that I’d like to meet with the guy, as I wanted to ask his opin
6 0.094039634 1131 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-20-Stan: A (Bayesian) Directed Graphical Model Compiler
7 0.091788381 970 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-24-Bell Labs
8 0.090637177 1016 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-17-I got 99 comparisons but multiplicity ain’t one
9 0.088205665 2192 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-30-History is too important to be left to the history professors, Part 2
10 0.078812301 1612 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-08-The Case for More False Positives in Anti-doping Testing
11 0.077958629 1072 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-19-“The difference between . . .”: It’s not just p=.05 vs. p=.06
12 0.076586142 1207 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-10-A quick suggestion
13 0.075147428 401 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-08-Silly old chi-square!
14 0.07478705 1715 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-09-Thomas Hobbes would be spinning in his grave
15 0.074509569 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
16 0.073015302 350 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-18-Subtle statistical issues to be debated on TV.
17 0.07142318 1989 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-20-Correcting for multiple comparisons in a Bayesian regression model
18 0.070989035 94 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-17-SAT stories
19 0.070890427 1126 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-18-Bob on Stan
20 0.070046313 897 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-09-The difference between significant and not significant…
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.1), (1, -0.036), (2, 0.013), (3, -0.013), (4, 0.015), (5, -0.001), (6, 0.008), (7, -0.006), (8, 0.007), (9, -0.012), (10, -0.044), (11, 0.009), (12, 0.029), (13, -0.058), (14, 0.022), (15, -0.0), (16, -0.01), (17, -0.042), (18, 0.019), (19, -0.005), (20, -0.011), (21, 0.001), (22, -0.005), (23, 0.008), (24, 0.004), (25, -0.045), (26, -0.046), (27, -0.029), (28, 0.029), (29, 0.029), (30, 0.047), (31, 0.025), (32, 0.039), (33, 0.065), (34, -0.004), (35, 0.01), (36, 0.007), (37, 0.028), (38, 0.011), (39, 0.03), (40, -0.022), (41, -0.008), (42, 0.027), (43, 0.061), (44, -0.057), (45, -0.02), (46, 0.012), (47, -0.015), (48, -0.008), (49, -0.036)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96987897 1081 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Statistical ethics violation
Introduction: A colleague writes: When I was in NYC I went to this party by group of Japanese bio-scientists. There, one guy told me about how the biggest pharmaceutical company in Japan did their statistics. They ran 100 different tests and reported the most significant one. (This was in 2006 and he said they stopped doing this few years back so they were doing this until pretty recently…) I’m not sure if this was 100 multiple comparison or 100 different kinds of test but I’m sure they wouldn’t want to disclose their data… Ouch!
Introduction: In this article , Oliver Sacks talks about his extreme difficulty in recognizing people (even close friends) and places (even extremely familiar locations such as his apartment and his office). After reading this, I started to wonder if I have a very mild case of face-blindness. I’m very good at recognizing places, but I’m not good at faces. And I can’t really visualize faces at all. Like Sacks and some of his correspondents, I often have to do it by cheating, by recognizing certain landmarks that I can remember, thus coding the face linguistically rather than visually. (On the other hand, when thinking about mathematics or statistics, I’m very visual, as readers of this blog can attest.) Anyway, in searching for the link to Sacks’s article, I came across the “ Cambridge Face Memory Test .” My reaction when taking this test was mostly irritation. I just found it annoying to stare at all these unadorned faces, and in my attempt to memorize them, I was trying to use trick
3 0.63427198 912 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-15-n = 2
Introduction: People in Chicago are nice. The conductor on the train came by and I asked if I could buy a ticket right there. He said yes, $2.50. While I was getting the money he asked if the ticket machine at the station had been broken. I said, I don’t know, I saw the train and ran up the stairs to catch it. He said, that’s not what you’re supposed to say. So I said, that’s right, the machine was broken. It’s just like on that radio show where Peter Sagal hems and haws to clue the contestant in that his guess is wrong so he can try again.
4 0.62179106 1530 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-11-Migrating your blog from Movable Type to WordPress
Introduction: Cord Blomquist, who did a great job moving us from horrible Movable Type to nice nice WordPress, writes: I [Cord] wanted to share a little news with you related to the original work we did for you last year. When ReadyMadeWeb converted your Movable Type blog to WordPress, we got a lot of other requestes for the same service, so we started thinking about a bigger market for such a product. After a bit of research, we started work on automating the data conversion, writing rules, and exceptions to the rules, on how Movable Type and TypePad data could be translated to WordPress. After many months of work, we’re getting ready to announce TP2WP.com , a service that converts Movable Type and TypePad export files to WordPress import files, so anyone who wants to migrate to WordPress can do so easily and without losing permalinks, comments, images, or other files. By automating our service, we’ve been able to drop the price to just $99. I recommend it (and, no, Cord is not paying m
5 0.61726987 1330 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-19-Cross-validation to check missing-data imputation
Introduction: Aureliano Crameri writes: I have questions regarding one technique you and your colleagues described in your papers: the cross validation (Multiple Imputation with Diagnostics (mi) in R: Opening Windows into the Black Box, with reference to Gelman, King, and Liu, 1998). I think this is the technique I need for my purpose, but I am not sure I understand it right. I want to use the multiple imputation to estimate the outcome of psychotherapies based on longitudinal data. First I have to demonstrate that I am able to get unbiased estimates with the multiple imputation. The expected bias is the overestimation of the outcome of dropouts. I will test my imputation strategies by means of a series of simulations (delete values, impute, compare with the original). Due to the complexity of the statistical analyses I think I need at least 200 cases. Now I don’t have so many cases without any missings. My data have missing values in different variables. The proportion of missing values is
7 0.61115676 1605 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-04-Write This Book
8 0.60837513 1980 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-13-Test scores and grades predict job performance (but maybe not at Google)
9 0.60507572 52 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-Intellectual property
10 0.60352266 1702 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-01-Don’t let your standard errors drive your research agenda
11 0.59755492 212 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-17-Futures contracts, Granger causality, and my preference for estimation to testing
12 0.59458745 2049 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-03-On house arrest for p-hacking
13 0.59385401 229 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-24-Bizarre twisty argument about medical diagnostic tests
14 0.5917843 1016 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-17-I got 99 comparisons but multiplicity ain’t one
15 0.59053469 799 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-13-Hypothesis testing with multiple imputations
16 0.58766556 1639 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-26-Impersonators
17 0.58529061 913 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-16-Groundhog day in August?
18 0.58299023 544 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-29-Splitting the data
19 0.58025116 2295 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-18-One-tailed or two-tailed?
20 0.58011246 923 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-24-What is the normal range of values in a medical test?
topicId topicWeight
[(15, 0.459), (24, 0.164), (99, 0.224)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.97178793 439 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-30-Of psychology research and investment tips
Introduction: A few days after “ Dramatic study shows participants are affected by psychological phenomena from the future ,” (see here ) the British Psychological Society follows up with “ Can psychology help combat pseudoscience? .” Somehow I’m reminded of that bit of financial advice which says, if you want to save some money, your best investment is to pay off your credit card bills.
2 0.91080642 908 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-14-Type M errors in the lab
Introduction: Jeff points us to this news article by Asher Mullard: Bayer halts nearly two-thirds of its target-validation projects because in-house experimental findings fail to match up with published literature claims, finds a first-of-a-kind analysis on data irreproducibility. An unspoken industry rule alleges that at least 50% of published studies from academic laboratories cannot be repeated in an industrial setting, wrote venture capitalist Bruce Booth in a recent blog post. A first-of-a-kind analysis of Bayer’s internal efforts to validate ‘new drug target’ claims now not only supports this view but suggests that 50% may be an underestimate; the company’s in-house experimental data do not match literature claims in 65% of target-validation projects, leading to project discontinuation. . . . Khusru Asadullah, Head of Target Discovery at Bayer, and his colleagues looked back at 67 target-validation projects, covering the majority of Bayer’s work in oncology, women’s health and cardiov
3 0.90038896 1394 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-27-99!
Introduction: Those of you who know what I’m talking about, know what I’m talking about.
same-blog 4 0.89521194 1081 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Statistical ethics violation
Introduction: A colleague writes: When I was in NYC I went to this party by group of Japanese bio-scientists. There, one guy told me about how the biggest pharmaceutical company in Japan did their statistics. They ran 100 different tests and reported the most significant one. (This was in 2006 and he said they stopped doing this few years back so they were doing this until pretty recently…) I’m not sure if this was 100 multiple comparison or 100 different kinds of test but I’m sure they wouldn’t want to disclose their data… Ouch!
5 0.87124205 834 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-01-I owe it all to the haters
Introduction: Sometimes when I submit an article to a journal it is accepted right away or with minor alterations. But many of my favorite articles were rejected or had to go through an exhausting series of revisions. For example, this influential article had a very hostile referee and we had to seriously push the journal editor to accept it. This one was rejected by one or two journals before finally appearing with discussion. This paper was rejected by the American Political Science Review with no chance of revision and we had to publish it in the British Journal of Political Science, which was a bit odd given that the article was 100% about American politics. And when I submitted this instant classic (actually at the invitation of the editor), the referees found it to be trivial, and the editor did me the favor of publishing it but only by officially labeling it as a discussion of another article that appeared in the same issue. Some of my most influential papers were accepted right
6 0.83912861 1541 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-19-Statistical discrimination again
7 0.82834244 1624 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-15-New prize on causality in statstistics education
8 0.82529879 1800 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-12-Too tired to mock
10 0.82399309 945 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-06-W’man < W’pedia, again
11 0.81378579 133 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-08-Gratuitous use of “Bayesian Statistics,” a branding issue?
12 0.81351095 1794 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-09-My talks in DC and Baltimore this week
13 0.81345737 2278 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-01-Association for Psychological Science announces a new journal
14 0.78431022 1908 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-21-Interpreting interactions in discrete-data regression
15 0.76638538 762 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-13-How should journals handle replication studies?
16 0.75208414 2188 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-27-“Disappointed with your results? Boost your scientific paper”
17 0.73221695 1833 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-30-“Tragedy of the science-communication commons”
18 0.72124487 1998 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-25-A new Bem theory
19 0.72087097 1888 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-08-New Judea Pearl journal of causal inference