andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1741 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 These factors are associated with weight loss and increased mortality. [sent-6, score-0.323]
2 In other words, people are not dying because they are slim, he said. [sent-7, score-0.23]
3 They are slim because they are dying—of cancer or old age, for example. [sent-8, score-0.414]
4 By doing a meta-analysis of studies that did not properly control for this bias, Flegal amplified the error in the original studies. [sent-9, score-0.462]
5 Hu ain’t no fatty either: This all came pretty fast. [sent-10, score-0.242]
6 It was only last month that the much-publicized ( here and here , for example) study came out, claiming a protective effect of being overweight. [sent-11, score-0.459]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('flegal', 0.328), ('slim', 0.328), ('hu', 0.26), ('dying', 0.23), ('professor', 0.191), ('weight', 0.163), ('chronically', 0.149), ('fatty', 0.149), ('brigham', 0.149), ('amplified', 0.149), ('women', 0.146), ('ill', 0.141), ('reaches', 0.135), ('nutrition', 0.13), ('chronic', 0.13), ('smokers', 0.126), ('protective', 0.126), ('diseases', 0.115), ('elderly', 0.115), ('chief', 0.113), ('gradient', 0.113), ('thin', 0.111), ('hospital', 0.108), ('original', 0.108), ('mortality', 0.105), ('ain', 0.105), ('properly', 0.103), ('studies', 0.102), ('bell', 0.101), ('body', 0.094), ('came', 0.093), ('division', 0.091), ('frank', 0.09), ('begin', 0.09), ('index', 0.089), ('lee', 0.089), ('cancer', 0.086), ('upper', 0.086), ('claiming', 0.085), ('medicine', 0.084), ('mass', 0.084), ('study', 0.083), ('loss', 0.083), ('yeah', 0.081), ('harvard', 0.079), ('increases', 0.079), ('near', 0.077), ('samples', 0.077), ('increased', 0.077), ('month', 0.072)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 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
2 0.11387235 1905 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-18-There are no fat sprinters
Introduction: This post is by Phil. A little over three years ago I wrote a post about exercise and weight loss in which I described losing a fair amount of weight due to (I believe) an exercise regime, with no effort to change my diet; this contradicted the prediction of studies that had recently been released. The comment thread on that post is quite interesting: a lot of people had had similar experiences — losing weight, or keeping it off, with an exercise program that includes very short periods of exercise at maximal intensity — while other people expressed some skepticism about my claims. Some commenters said that I risked injury; others said it was too early to judge anything because my weight loss might not last. The people who predicted injury were right: running the curve during a 200m sprint a month or two after that post, I strained my Achilles tendon. Nothing really serious, but it did keep me off the track for a couple of months, and rather than go back to sprinting I switched t
3 0.11062474 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 0.11000402 2114 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-26-“Please make fun of this claim”
Introduction: Jeff sent me an email with the above title and a link to a press release, “Nut consumption reduces risk of death,” which begins: According to the largest study of its kind, people who ate a daily handful of nuts were 20 percent less likely to die from any cause over a 30-year period than those who didn’t consume nuts . . . Their report, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, contains further good news: The regular nut-eaters were found to be more slender than those who didn’t eat nuts, a finding that should alleviate fears that eating a lot of nuts will lead to overweight. . . . For the new research, the scientists were able to tap databases from two well-known, ongoing observational studies that collect data on diet and other lifestyle factors and various health outcomes. The Nurses’ Health Study provided data on 76,464 women between 1980 and 2010, and the Health Professionals’ Follow-Up Study yielded data on 42,498 men from 1986 to 2010. . . . Sophisticated data a
Introduction: In my article about implausible p-values in psychology studies, I wrote: “Women Are More Likely to Wear Red or Pink at Peak Fertility,” by Alec Beall and Jessica Tracy, is based on two samples: a self-selected sample of 100 women from the Internet, and 24 undergraduates at the University of British Columbia. . . . [There is a problem with] representativeness. What color clothing you wear has a lot to do with where you live and who you hang out with. Participants in an Internet survey and University of British Columbia students aren’t particularly representative of much more than … participants in an Internet survey and University of British Columbia students. In response, I received this in an email from a prominent psychology researcher (not someone I know personally): Complaining that subjects in an experiment were not randomly sampled is what freshmen do before they take their first psychology class. I really *hope* you why that is an absurd criticism – especially of au
6 0.086687148 1341 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-24-Question 14 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
7 0.083844334 1766 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-16-“Nightshifts Linked to Increased Risk for Ovarian Cancer”
8 0.079990059 2220 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-22-Quickies
9 0.079506166 2236 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-07-Selection bias in the reporting of shaky research
10 0.07752642 2154 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-30-Bill Gates’s favorite graph of the year
11 0.073667608 2022 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-13-You heard it here first: Intense exercise can suppress appetite
12 0.07180278 1239 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-01-A randomized trial of the set-point diet
13 0.070360839 1340 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-23-Question 13 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
14 0.069340847 1581 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-17-Horrible but harmless?
15 0.069252342 1945 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-18-“How big is your chance of dying in an ordinary play?”
16 0.068388976 1480 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-02-“If our product is harmful . . . we’ll stop making it.”
17 0.066380076 1573 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-11-Incredibly strange spam
18 0.063835509 923 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-24-What is the normal range of values in a medical test?
19 0.063207962 1860 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-17-How can statisticians help psychologists do their research better?
20 0.062016249 1681 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-19-Participate in a short survey about the weight of evidence provided by statistics
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.096), (1, -0.032), (2, 0.037), (3, -0.073), (4, 0.0), (5, -0.0), (6, 0.025), (7, 0.004), (8, -0.012), (9, -0.003), (10, -0.04), (11, -0.017), (12, 0.01), (13, 0.009), (14, 0.012), (15, 0.04), (16, 0.053), (17, 0.0), (18, 0.025), (19, -0.004), (20, -0.023), (21, 0.03), (22, -0.044), (23, -0.03), (24, 0.03), (25, 0.041), (26, -0.061), (27, -0.004), (28, 0.022), (29, -0.0), (30, -0.055), (31, 0.05), (32, 0.0), (33, 0.012), (34, 0.019), (35, 0.006), (36, 0.017), (37, -0.001), (38, -0.017), (39, -0.014), (40, -0.044), (41, -0.054), (42, 0.044), (43, 0.002), (44, 0.042), (45, -0.025), (46, 0.031), (47, 0.037), (48, -0.019), (49, 0.019)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96178877 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
2 0.85608745 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
3 0.78037471 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: 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
Introduction: Thomas Lumley writes : The Herald has a story about hazards of coffee. The picture caption says Men who drink more than four cups a day are 56 per cent more likely to die. which is obviously not true: deaths, as we’ve observed before, are fixed at one per customer. The story says It’s not that people are dying at a rapid rate. But men who drink more than four cups a day are 56 per cent more likely to die and women have double the chance compared with moderate drinkers, according to the The University of Queensland and the University of South Carolina study. What the study actually reported was rates of death: over an average of 17 years, men who drink more than four cups a day died at about a 21% higher rate, with little evidence of any difference in men. After they considered only men and women under 55 (which they don’t say was something they had planned to do), and attempted to control for a whole bunch of other factors, the rate increase went to 56% for me
6 0.70312881 1128 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-19-Sharon Begley: Worse than Stephen Jay Gould?
7 0.69203722 48 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-23-The bane of many causes
8 0.6909833 1114 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-12-Controversy about average personality differences between men and women
9 0.69002539 2114 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-26-“Please make fun of this claim”
10 0.68512815 1053 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-11-This one is so dumb it makes me want to barf
11 0.68352264 1906 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-19-“Behind a cancer-treatment firm’s rosy survival claims”
12 0.68329024 1239 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-01-A randomized trial of the set-point diet
13 0.67887044 2328 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-10-What property is important in a risk prediction model? Discrimination or calibration?
14 0.67842704 1086 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-27-The most dangerous jobs in America
16 0.67330766 161 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-24-Differences in color perception by sex, also the Bechdel test for women in movies
18 0.66460389 2022 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-13-You heard it here first: Intense exercise can suppress appetite
19 0.66017199 2049 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-03-On house arrest for p-hacking
20 0.65280443 1548 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-25-Health disparities are associated with low life expectancy
topicId topicWeight
[(13, 0.061), (16, 0.056), (21, 0.025), (24, 0.05), (25, 0.296), (35, 0.014), (44, 0.014), (45, 0.026), (53, 0.049), (54, 0.014), (63, 0.013), (72, 0.01), (95, 0.013), (97, 0.017), (99, 0.236)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.88750446 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
Introduction: From a commenter on the web, 21 May 2010: Tampa Bay: Playing .732 ball in the toughest division in baseball, wiped their feet on NY twice. If they sweep Houston, which seems pretty likely, they will be at .750, which I [the commenter] have never heard of. At the time of that posting, the Rays were 30-11. Quick calculation: if a team is good enough to be expected to win 100 games, that is, Pr(win) = 100/162 = .617, then there’s a 5% chance that they’ll have won at least 30 of their first 41 games. That’s a calculation based on simple probability theory of independent events, which isn’t quite right here but will get you close and is a good way to train one’s intuition , I think. Having a .732 record after 41 games is not unheard-of. The Detroit Tigers won 35 of their first 40 games in 1984: that’s .875. (I happen to remember that fast start, having been an Orioles fan at the time.) Now on to the key ideas The passage quoted above illustrates three statistical fa
3 0.78192592 353 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-19-The violent crime rate was about 75% higher in Detroit than in Minneapolis in 2009
Introduction: Christopher Uggen reports . I’m surprised the difference is so small. I would’ve thought the crime rate was something like 5 times higher in Detroit than in Minneapolis. I guess Minneapolis must have some rough neighborhoods. Or maybe it’s just that I don’t have a good framework for thinking about crime statistics.
4 0.78029954 821 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-25-See me talk in the Upper West Side (without graphs) today
Introduction: At Picnic Cafe, Broadway at 101 St, 6-7pm today. Should we vote even though it probably won’t make a difference? Why is the question “Are we better off now than four years ago?” not an appeal to selfishness? Are Americans as polarized as we think? Come explore these and other questions about voting in America today. It’s the usual stuff but close-up so lots of opportunity to argue and heckle. No slides or graphs. My plan is to hand out 30-50 index cards, each with a phrase (for example, “Moderation in the pursuit of moderation is no vice” or “Gerrymandering is good for you” or “How to predict elections”), then participants can call out topics and I’ll yap on them (with discussion) till we run out of time. It’ll be weird to talk without graphs. We’ll see how it goes.
5 0.70229995 1296 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-03-Google Translate for code, and an R help-list bot
Introduction: What we did in our Stan meeting yesterday: Some discussion of revision of the Nuts paper, some conversations about parameterizations of categorical-data models, plans for the R interface, blah blah blah. But also, I had two exciting new ideas! Google Translate for code Wouldn’t it be great if Google Translate could work on computer languages? I suggested this and somebody said that it might be a problem because code isn’t always translatable. But that doesn’t worry so much. Google Translate for human languages isn’t perfect either but it’s a useful guide. If I want to write a message to someone in French or Spanish or Dutch, I wouldn’t just write it in English and run it through Translate. What I do is try my best to write it in the desired language, but I can try out some tricky words or phrases in the translator. Or, if I start by translating, I go back and forth to make sure it all makes sense. An R help-list bot We were talking about how to build a Stan commun
7 0.68372983 1577 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-14-Richer people continue to vote Republican
8 0.68314266 52 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-Intellectual property
9 0.67847586 2213 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-16-There’s no need for you to read this one
10 0.6758545 1151 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-03-Philosophy of Bayesian statistics: my reactions to Senn
11 0.66902804 1039 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-02-I just flew in from the econ seminar, and boy are my arms tired
12 0.66862679 451 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-05-What do practitioners need to know about regression?
13 0.66721988 570 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-12-Software request
14 0.66496682 859 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-18-Misunderstanding analysis of covariance
15 0.66332006 1380 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-15-Coaching, teaching, and writing
16 0.64755011 913 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-16-Groundhog day in August?
17 0.64722085 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story
18 0.64638764 1137 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-24-Difficulties in publishing non-replications of implausible findings
19 0.64608878 524 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-19-Data exploration and multiple comparisons
20 0.64549971 2309 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-28-Crowdstorming a dataset