If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#481
|
|||
|
|||
bizby40 wrote: "toto" wrote in message ... On 14 May 2005 19:12:16 -0700, wrote: There are a lot of GIGO situations. (Anyone remember GIGO?) Puts up hand....... I do, I do... I found myself wanting to use the terms LIFO and FIFO in my post on bus routes. :-) Bizby I used it in my fridge, for eggs. FIFO, of course, not LIFO. Rupa |
#482
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Bob LeChevalier wrote: (Herman Rubin) wrote: In article , toto wrote: On 12 May 2005 10:50:14 -0500, (Herman Rubin) wrote: In addition, time spent on a bus is almost entirely LOST time. In some cases, busing added more than an hour to the "school day". Before integration, black children frequently went to schools farther than the white schools they were asking to get in. But busing for racial balance provided for a lot less time for learning, homework, and other activities. Why is it that busing for integration is questioned, but busing for distance is not. The same amount of time is spent on the bus. It shouldn't matter what the purpose of the busing is. Of course, if you are against busing kids then you have to build schools closer to their homes. Suppose you have two areas, with an hour ride between them. Each has schools. Busing students from one area to the other just to get racial balance is what is stupid. Only if you think "racial balance" is stupid. Replace "racial balance" by "an academically challenging school" and you probably would have no problem with it. Racial balance has NEVER been legislated; what has been legislated is no racial discrimination. It is one thing to travel to a school which gives a substantially stronger education, but is spending two hours a day doing nothing worth it? Busing two ways to get racial balance certainly does not get justified by this type of argument. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#483
|
|||
|
|||
THIS IS A WOODWORKING NEWS GROUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Herman Rubin" wrote in message ... In article , Bob LeChevalier wrote: (Herman Rubin) wrote: In article , toto wrote: On 12 May 2005 10:50:14 -0500, (Herman Rubin) wrote: In addition, time spent on a bus is almost entirely LOST time. In some cases, busing added more than an hour to the "school day". Before integration, black children frequently went to schools farther than the white schools they were asking to get in. But busing for racial balance provided for a lot less time for learning, homework, and other activities. Why is it that busing for integration is questioned, but busing for distance is not. The same amount of time is spent on the bus. It shouldn't matter what the purpose of the busing is. Of course, if you are against busing kids then you have to build schools closer to their homes. Suppose you have two areas, with an hour ride between them. Each has schools. Busing students from one area to the other just to get racial balance is what is stupid. Only if you think "racial balance" is stupid. Replace "racial balance" by "an academically challenging school" and you probably would have no problem with it. Racial balance has NEVER been legislated; what has been legislated is no racial discrimination. It is one thing to travel to a school which gives a substantially stronger education, but is spending two hours a day doing nothing worth it? Busing two ways to get racial balance certainly does not get justified by this type of argument. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#484
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Bob LeChevalier wrote: wrote: On 12 May 2005 11:34:49 -0500, (Herman Rubin) wrote: .................... On the contrary; what I consider to be the concepts are what is needed to know what it means well enough to formulate the problems, and to know what the assumptions mean. It is not unusual for someone to come in with a stack of observations, and ask to be told the state of the universe. Well yeah, I can see where THAT request would crop up in every day conversation. It's pointless to even try to tell you that what you're using as an example to support your position is an extreme application and not one that is commonplace, isn't it? At the risk of defending Herman, I think it is commonplace, but is seldom put in the highly abstract terms he uses. One example would be the assessment of risk in a medical procedure. People don't have the information on the chances of success of a given medical option (the data is seldom properly gathered so as to give those chances) vs the level of risk. This is where the medical profession should come in, to provide the assessment, not of the risk, but the probabilities of outcomes. The risk also involves the importance of the outcomes, and this MUST be left to the individual to assess. Immediately coming to mind are the newsmaking arthritis medications. If I have arthritis, is it worth it for me to take Vioxx or one of the other suspect drugs? There is risk of side effects, but what is the risk for me personally? It would probably take a complex (Bayesian?) statistical analysis to come up with any idea at all, and I know I don't have the math to do that. You are right. But YOU have to be able to evaluate the importance of the various consequences, and the medical profession needs to evaluate the probabilities, taking into account you, as an individual, and the computer can then provide the procedure. Even better, the computer can evaluate the risks of the various procedures, weighting them with your weights, in the different situations, and you might want to choose one which is slightly worse in the accepted situation, but less subject to change if the accepted situation turns out to be somewhat in error. But I don't see any practical solution either, because most people aren't going to be willing to learn what they would need to learn to be able to apply math intelligently. Read the above; it can be done, and it should be done, but not by government fiat. They DO assume that all that one has to do to analyze observations is to look at them, with no idea of assumptions about the structure. So they mostly do NOT really need to be able to the math themselves, as I said. He claims that they need to, if they want to get "correct" answers. No, they need to formulate the math, not to be able to carry out the calculations, or even to decide how the calculations are done. Only the individual can produce the relative importance of the various results, and some of the biological information is individual; the medical people need to make their formulation of the probabilistic assumptions in medicine so the posterior probabilities can be calculated, and then the machine can come up with the information. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#485
|
|||
|
|||
Herman Rubin wrote: Bob LeChevalier wrote: One example would be the assessment of risk in a medical procedure. People don't have the information on the chances of success of a given medical option (the data is seldom properly gathered so as to give those chances) vs the level of risk. This is where the medical profession should come in, to provide the assessment, not of the risk, but the probabilities of outcomes. I think there's a data issue here. How can the medical profession provide anything but a subjective assessment unless the data are collected to provide those probabilities? And who funds that data collection? Even better, the computer can evaluate the risks of the various procedures, weighting them with your weights, in the different situations, and you might want to choose one which is slightly worse in the accepted situation, but less subject to change if the accepted situation turns out to be somewhat in error. IMO, the mathematical model in this case would be very easy to build. It's not even that sophisticated, just a bunch of probabilities. What is really difficult is getting the data to feed into the model. Take the Vioxx example. You would want independent probabilities of cardiac risk for various factors: Gender; age; existing cardiac problems; ethnicity; weight. (That's all I can think of for now, but I'm sure there would be other factors.) You would want joint probabilities for every combination, assuming that they're not independent. (And I don't think you can assume that.) So you'd need a *huge* study of Vioxx against various control groups. Who's doing that? So what it will boil down to is something like, for a sample of people taking Vioxx as compared to people taking, oh, say, ibuprofen, there was an increased mortality of x%. Of this y% was due to cardiac problems. So you extrapolate from that, having no reason not to, that it will raise *your* risk of mortality by x%. Then you figure, did using Vioxx make me feel so much better, compared to using ibuprofen, that it's worth the increased risk? (I'd probably want to know the increased mortality from all causes in the sample, but that's a separate issue...) No, they need to formulate the math, not to be able to carry out the calculations, or even to decide how the calculations are done. Only the individual can produce the relative importance of the various results, and some of the biological information is individual; the medical people need to make their formulation of the probabilistic assumptions in medicine so the posterior probabilities can be calculated, and then the machine can come up with the information. The people who need to understand the math are the people who are gathering data. Unless they know, they won't be able to set up decent data collection, and after that, aggressive analysis of the data won't necessarily give you a good answer. Rupa |
#486
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
wrote: Herman Rubin wrote: Bob LeChevalier wrote: One example would be the assessment of risk in a medical procedure. People don't have the information on the chances of success of a given medical option (the data is seldom properly gathered so as to give those chances) vs the level of risk. This is where the medical profession should come in, to provide the assessment, not of the risk, but the probabilities of outcomes. I think there's a data issue here. How can the medical profession provide anything but a subjective assessment unless the data are collected to provide those probabilities? And who funds that data collection? What do you think is being done now? With the data available, no matter how much is collected, there will necessarily be considerable subjectivity. This is not the worst of the problems, nor even that much of a problem. Subjectivity is unavoidable. Even better, the computer can evaluate the risks of the various procedures, weighting them with your weights, in the different situations, and you might want to choose one which is slightly worse in the accepted situation, but less subject to change if the accepted situation turns out to be somewhat in error. IMO, the mathematical model in this case would be very easy to build. It's not even that sophisticated, just a bunch of probabilities. What is really difficult is getting the data to feed into the model. Take the Vioxx example. You would want independent probabilities of cardiac risk for various factors: Gender; age; existing cardiac problems; ethnicity; weight. (That's all I can think of for now, but I'm sure there would be other factors.) You would want joint probabilities for every combination, assuming that they're not independent. (And I don't think you can assume that.) One can always do the best with the data available. As a statistician, I find the great bulk of the medical uses of statistics to be misuses. Objectivity is impossible unless the relations are simple, and they are not, and there are few "nuisance factors". It is possible to carry out such studies; they are not possible using what can be taught in methods courses. So you'd need a *huge* study of Vioxx against various control groups. No; one can work with what is available. Who's doing that? So what it will boil down to is something like, for a sample of people taking Vioxx as compared to people taking, oh, say, ibuprofen, there was an increased mortality of x%. Of this y% was due to cardiac problems. So you extrapolate from that, having no reason not to, that it will raise *your* risk of mortality by x%. This is not the important problem. Then you figure, did using Vioxx make me feel so much better, compared to using ibuprofen, that it's worth the increased risk? This one is MUCH more important. BTW, ibuprofen decreases the heart protective value of aspirin; I do not know if Vioxx has a similar effect. (I'd probably want to know the increased mortality from all causes in the sample, but that's a separate issue...) That is another problem. The additions to the usual NSAIDS to decrease stomach problems increase the risks from infectious diseases; the mechanism is clear. One needs to balance the situation. No, they need to formulate the math, not to be able to carry out the calculations, or even to decide how the calculations are done. Only the individual can produce the relative importance of the various results, and some of the biological information is individual; the medical people need to make their formulation of the probabilistic assumptions in medicine so the posterior probabilities can be calculated, and then the machine can come up with the information. The people who need to understand the math are the people who are gathering data. The ones now designing the experiments do not; they only use simplistic approaches. Unless they know, they won't be able to set up decent data collection, and after that, aggressive analysis of the data won't necessarily give you a good answer. They do not even know how to analyze the data. The bigger problem is they do not even know how to report it, and do it in a very simplistic manner. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#487
|
|||
|
|||
Herman Rubin wrote: In article .com, wrote: Herman Rubin wrote: This is where the medical profession should come in, to provide the assessment, not of the risk, but the probabilities of outcomes. I think there's a data issue here. How can the medical profession provide anything but a subjective assessment unless the data are collected to provide those probabilities? And who funds that data collection? What do you think is being done now? With the data available, no matter how much is collected, there will necessarily be considerable subjectivity. This is not the worst of the problems, nor even that much of a problem. Subjectivity is unavoidable. Of course, but of what kind? The Vioxx study showed that of 1300 participants using Vioxx for over 18 months, 15 had cardiac events (heart attack or stroke). Of the 1300 in the control group, apparently 5 or fewer had such events. What does that tell a doctor? It triples your risk? Ah. Right. What is my risk? If we assume that the study's participants are representative of all potnetial Vioxx users, my risk is somewhere around 0.4% without Vioxx and 1.1% with Vioxx. Is that a lot or a little? How is it impacted by other risk factors? If I'm at a higher risk because, say, there is heart disease in my family, does it just add on a little bit, or does it triple my already higher risk? One can always do the best with the data available. The best with the data available...is that it increases your risk from 0.4% to 1.1%. Since the mechanism involved isn't clear, we don't know if it works independently of other risk factors, or if it multiplies them. Depending on how much relief Vioxx gave you as compared to the next best thing, you might want to go with it. You can't, of course, since it's been withdrawn. Merck calculated the probability of getting sued... It is possible to carry out such studies; they are not possible using what can be taught in methods courses. I rather think it's a matter of lab methods meets real world. You have to find people willing to sign up for double-blind studies for whatever you can offer them to participate. If you wanted to stratify your sample by age and gender and so forth, you would need a pretty big sample, AFAIK. So you'd need a *huge* study of Vioxx against various control groups. No; one can work with what is available. How? So what it will boil down to is something like, for a sample of people taking Vioxx as compared to people taking, oh, say, ibuprofen, there was an increased mortality of x%. Of this y% was due to cardiac problems. So you extrapolate from that, having no reason not to, that it will raise *your* risk of mortality by x%. This is not the important problem. No? But then there isn't one, is there? You take it if it makes you feel better, and you stop if it doesn't. Unless you understand the extent of the risk, how can you weigh a benefit against it? Then you figure, did using Vioxx make me feel so much better, compared to using ibuprofen, that it's worth the increased risk? This one is MUCH more important. BTW, ibuprofen decreases the heart protective value of aspirin; I do not know if Vioxx has a similar effect. (I'd probably want to know the increased mortality from all causes in the sample, but that's a separate issue...) That is another problem. The additions to the usual NSAIDS to decrease stomach problems increase the risks from infectious diseases; the mechanism is clear. One needs to balance the situation. I think you might be referring to omeprazole and similar treatments for acid reflux disease. They decrease the level of acid in the stomach, but thus also reduce its ability to burn out the nasty bugs. I don't believe the coatings of NSAIDs have a similar effect. The ones now designing the experiments do not; they only use simplistic approaches. They do not even know how to analyze the data. The bigger problem is they do not even know how to report it, and do it in a very simplistic manner. Actually, I would imagine that most big pharma companies employ people trained in stats and math to design their trials and interpret the results. The reporting of the results, though, may be determined by lawyers and journalists. The Merck site had no details of how much Vioxx increased cardiac risk. The site set up by a liability attorney did. Rupa |
#488
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com,
wrote: Herman Rubin wrote: In article .com, wrote: Herman Rubin wrote: This is where the medical profession should come in, to provide the assessment, not of the risk, but the probabilities of outcomes. I think there's a data issue here. How can the medical profession provide anything but a subjective assessment unless the data are collected to provide those probabilities? And who funds that data collection? What do you think is being done now? With the data available, no matter how much is collected, there will necessarily be considerable subjectivity. This is not the worst of the problems, nor even that much of a problem. Subjectivity is unavoidable. Of course, but of what kind? Are you familiar with the likelihood function, risk, and the problems of self-consistent decision making? To put the matter as simply as possible, the decision to be made should be decided by using a weighted combination of the risks in the various states of nature, and the weights to be used can only be purely subjective. If the data is overwhelming, it matters little. If it is not, it can matter much. The Vioxx study showed that of 1300 participants using Vioxx for over 18 months, 15 had cardiac events (heart attack or stroke). Of the 1300 in the control group, apparently 5 or fewer had such events. What does that tell a doctor? Not as much as you think it does. In cases like this, what one might call the "effective sample size" would be 20, not a particularly large sample. It triples your risk? Roughly. Ah. Right. What is my risk? If we assume that the study's participants are representative of all potnetial Vioxx users, my risk is somewhere around 0.4% without Vioxx and 1.1% with Vioxx. Is that a lot or a little? Part of it depends on your age and how much Vioxx helps you. How is it impacted by other risk factors? If I'm at a higher risk because, say, there is heart disease in my family, does it just add on a little bit, or does it triple my already higher risk? Here is where I would have had those conducting the study to get the additional data, even though the elementary statistical rituals they know would be unable to use it. I do not know how much I could get out of it in this situation, but even if it only led to the places to look in subsequent studies, it should be obtained. One needs to understand that statistics is not a collection of recipes which tells one what to do, but that everything must be taken into account. Of course, this means that the nice procedures they have learned do not have the connotations which they already improperly assign to them. One can always do the best with the data available. The best with the data available...is that it increases your risk from 0.4% to 1.1%. Since the mechanism involved isn't clear, we don't know if it works independently of other risk factors, or if it multiplies them. See my paragraph above. The statistical idiots did not collect the information needed to even make a guess about this. Depending on how much relief Vioxx gave you as compared to the next best thing, you might want to go with it. You can't, of course, since it's been withdrawn. Merck calculated the probability of getting sued... If we had decent laws on this, this would not be a problem. If a company presents all the known information, including the bad information, and keeps updating it, this should be an absolute defense from lawsuits. This should apply to the FDA and other government agencies as well; their prohibitions should make the people responsible subject to lawsuits. It should not be a go/nogo situation, but here is what we know, and here is what we do not know; YOU decide. It is possible to carry out such studies; they are not possible using what can be taught in methods courses. I rather think it's a matter of lab methods meets real world. You have to find people willing to sign up for double-blind studies for whatever you can offer them to participate. If you wanted to stratify your sample by age and gender and so forth, you would need a pretty big sample, AFAIK. You can use multivariate methods. People in other fields have been using multivariate methods for 200 years. So you'd need a *huge* study of Vioxx against various control groups. No; one can work with what is available. How? See the above. I have no idea what the additional data would yield, if it was obtained. There is a limit to what can be done. At this time, about all that one can do is assume that it is an increased risk. ................... The ones now designing the experiments do not; they only use simplistic approaches. They do not even know how to analyze the data. The bigger problem is they do not even know how to report it, and do it in a very simplistic manner. Actually, I would imagine that most big pharma companies employ people trained in stats and math to design their trials and interpret the results. The reporting of the results, though, may be determined by lawyers and journalists. The Merck site had no details of how much Vioxx increased cardiac risk. The site set up by a liability attorney did. They have some, but not the ones with this type of knowledge. Most of what they do has to meet the rather rigid statistical ritual set out by the FDA, and those are determined by people who do not understand good statistics, nor how to consider handling complexities such as the ones you have raised. And the liability laws are as I said; honesty is no defense. That you had no idea that a product would cause reproductive problems 20 years later in daughters of women who take it, and how could they possibly have known this, did not protect the company from liability. However, it protected the doctors who prescribed it. The drug is still being used, on cattle, to prevent miscarriages, and is does not present problems. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#489
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
toto wrote: On 12 May 2005 21:13:43 -0500, (Herman Rubin) wrote: How many times do I have to say that one does not learn a concept by merely being given the words? It may even be likely for someone who understands mathematical logic to "see the light", but I do not expect a second grader to be able to do this. Concepts have to be illustrated, and it could be reasonable to point this out explicitly, and have them do enough examples that they see that the quartets of "number facts" are really only one. My ds as a second grader saw many examples and could indeed produce new examples of the commutative propery and the law of inverses. He could and did figure out negative numbers by *seeing* the number line. I don't think that most kids will do that however. But can he see the order properties of integers, and the quantitative properties, and see that they are different properties. The positive integers are a subset of the integers, and they have properties as positive integers which one cannot get from properties of integers, let alone properties of rational numbers or real numbers. So there are lots of concepts, and position on a line does not convey all. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#490
|
|||
|
|||
Herman Rubin wrote: wrote: Herman Rubin wrote: What do you think is being done now? With the data available, no matter how much is collected, there will necessarily be considerable subjectivity. This is not the worst of the problems, nor even that much of a problem. Subjectivity is unavoidable. Of course, but of what kind? Are you familiar with the likelihood function, risk, and the problems of self-consistent decision making? To put the matter as simply as possible, the decision to be made should be decided by using a weighted combination of the risks in the various states of nature, and the weights to be used can only be purely subjective. If the data is overwhelming, it matters little. If it is not, it can matter much. The point I was trying to make was that obviously the patient makes a subjective decision, but the doctor *should* be able to provide reasonably objective data. He can't because it hasn't been collected. He can only give you something like the summary I've given below. Which, as you point out, tells you very little. The Vioxx study showed that of 1300 participants using Vioxx for over 18 months, 15 had cardiac events (heart attack or stroke). Of the 1300 in the control group, apparently 5 or fewer had such events. What does that tell a doctor? Not as much as you think it does. In cases like this, what one might call the "effective sample size" would be 20, not a particularly large sample. Quite so. It triples your risk? Roughly. Ah. Right. What is my risk? If we assume that the study's participants are representative of all potnetial Vioxx users, my risk is somewhere around 0.4% without Vioxx and 1.1% with Vioxx. Is that a lot or a little? Part of it depends on your age and how much Vioxx helps you. Yes. And part of it depends on what my overall mortality risk is anyway. How is it impacted by other risk factors? If I'm at a higher risk because, say, there is heart disease in my family, does it just add on a little bit, or does it triple my already higher risk? Here is where I would have had those conducting the study to get the additional data... One can always do the best with the data available. The best with the data available...is that it increases your risk from 0.4% to 1.1%. Since the mechanism involved isn't clear, we don't know if it works independently of other risk factors, or if it multiplies them. See my paragraph above. The statistical idiots did not collect the information needed to even make a guess about this. I rather think it's a matter of lab methods meets real world. You have to find people willing to sign up for double-blind studies for whatever you can offer them to participate. If you wanted to stratify your sample by age and gender and so forth, you would need a pretty big sample, AFAIK. You can use multivariate methods. People in other fields have been using multivariate methods for 200 years. As you pointed out, our 2600 person study yielded an "effective sample size" of 20 cases of cardiac events. How do you do a multivariate analysis of that? Assuming you had data on age, gender, existing medical conditions. So you'd need a *huge* study of Vioxx against various control groups. No; one can work with what is available. How? See the above. I have no idea what the additional data would yield, if it was obtained. There is a limit to what can be done. At this time, about all that one can do is assume that it is an increased risk. Let us assume that it was obtained (and it well may have been - AFAIK, clinical studies do keep a reasonable amount of data on every participant). How can you make it yield any information on interactions of risk factors? My guess is you'd need a *much* larger study. Rupa |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How Children REALLY React To Control | Chris | General | 444 | July 20th 04 07:14 PM |
New Study Shows Child Support Guidelines in Need of Reform | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | June 30th 04 01:21 AM |
New Study Shows Child Support Guidelines in Need of Reform | Editor -- Child Support News | Child Support | 3 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
Peds want soda ban | Roger Schlafly | Kids Health | 125 | February 22nd 04 03:58 PM |