[burger]

Another good takedown of the Stanford study from Andrew Gelman, who is maybe the most famous statistician (oxymoron, I know) working today. 

This part is absolutely brutal and totally justified:

I think the authors of the above-linked paper owe us all an apology. We wasted time and effort discussing this paper whose main selling point was some numbers that were essentially the product of a statistical error.

I’m serious about the apology. Everyone makes mistakes. I don’t think they authors need to apologize just because they screwed up. I think they need to apologize because these were avoidable screw-ups. They’re the kind of screw-ups that happen if you want to leap out with an exciting finding and you don’t look too carefully at what you might have done wrong.

Ouch. There are some other hits at Stanford there, including a gratuitous Theranos mention. But I agree with everything that Gelman wrote about this study.

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2...revalence/

[burger]

Another good takedown of the Stanford study from Andrew Gelman, who is maybe the most famous statistician (oxymoron, I know) working today. 

This part is absolutely brutal and totally justified:

I think the authors of the above-linked paper owe us all an apology. We wasted time and effort discussing this paper whose main selling point was some numbers that were essentially the product of a statistical error.

I’m serious about the apology. Everyone makes mistakes. I don’t think they authors need to apologize just because they screwed up. I think they need to apologize because these were avoidable screw-ups. They’re the kind of screw-ups that happen if you want to leap out with an exciting finding and you don’t look too carefully at what you might have done wrong.

Ouch. There are some other hits at Stanford there, including a gratuitous Theranos mention. But I agree with everything that Gelman wrote about this study.

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2...revalence/