Skip to content
Archive of posts filed under the Public Health category.

The EpiBayes research group at the University of Michigan has a postdoc opening!

Jon Zelner writes: The EpiBayes research group, led by Dr. Jon Zelner in the Dept. of Epidemiology and Center for Social Epidemiology and Population Health (CSEPH) at the University of Michigan School of Public Health seeks a postdoctoral fellow to work with us on a variety of projects relating to the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and […]

This is your chance to comment on the U.S. government’s review of evidence on the effectiveness of home visiting. Comments are due by 1 Sept.

Emily Sama-Miller writes: The federally sponsored Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness (HomVEE) systematic evidence review is seeking public comment on proposed updates to its standards and procedures. HomVEE reviews research literature on home visiting for families with pregnant women and children from birth to kindergarten entry, and its results are used to inform federal funding […]

That “not a real doctor” thing . . . It’s kind of silly for people to think that going to medical school for a few years will give you the skills necessary to be able to evaluate research claims in medicine or anything else.

Paul Alper points us to this news article by Abby Phillip, “How a fake doctor made millions from ‘the Dr. Oz Effect’ and a bogus weight-loss supplement,” which begins: When Lindsey Duncan appeared on “The Dr. Oz Show” in 2012, he was introduced as a “naturopathic doctor” and a certified nutritionist. . . . But […]

Math error in herd immunity calculation from CNN epidemiology expert

Michael Weissman and Sander Greenland write: Sanjay Gupta and Andrea Kane just ran an extensive front-page CNN article reporting that some residual T-cell immune responses cross-react with SARS-Cov-19, perhaps enough to provide many people with some protection. The article seemed straightforward and reasonable enough until it got to this strangely erroneous statement: For herd immunity, […]

BMJ update: authors reply to our concerns (but I’m not persuaded)

Last week we discussed an article in the British Medical Journal that seemed seriously flawed to me, based on evidence such as the above graph. At the suggestion of Elizabeth Loder, I submitted a comment to the paper on the BMJ website. Here’s what I wrote: I am concerned that the model does not fit […]

Can the science community help journalists avoid science hype? It won’t be easy.

tl;dr: Selection bias. The public letter Michael Eisen and Rob Tibshirani write: Researchers have responded to the challenge of the coronavirus with a commitment to speed and cooperation, featuring the rapid sharing of preliminary findings through “preprints,” scientific manuscripts that have not yet undergone formal peer review. . . . But the open dissemination of […]

Coronavirus corrections, data sources, and issues.

This post is by Phil Price, not Andrew. I’ve got a backlog of COVID-related stuff I’ve been meaning to post. I had intended to do a separate post about each of these, complete with citations and documentations, but the weeks are flying by and I’ve got to admit that that’s not going to happen. So […]

My talk this Wed 7:30pm (NY time) / Thurs 9:30am (Australian time) at the Victorian Centre for Biostatistics

The “Victorian Centre for Biostatistics,” huh? I guess maybe I should speak about Francis Galton or something. Actually, though, I’ll be giving this talk: Bayesian workflow as demonstrated with a coronavirus example We recently fit a series of models to account for uncertainty and variation in coronavirus tests (see here). We will talk about the […]

Would we be better off if randomized clinical trials had never been born?

This came up in discussion the other day. In statistics and medicine, we’re generally told to rely when possible on the statistically significance (or lack of statistical significance) of results from randomized trials. But, as we know, statistical significance has all sorts of problems, most notably that it ignores questions of cost and benefit, and […]

“Sorry, there is no peer review to display for this article.” Huh? Whassup, BMJ?

OK, this is weird. Yesterday we reported on an article with questionable statistical analysis published in the British Medical Journal. This one’s different from some other examples we’ve discussed recently (Surgisphere and Stanford) in that the author list of this recent article includes several statisticians. One way to get a handle on this situation is […]

Please socially distance me from this regression model!

A biostatistician writes: The BMJ just published a paper using regression discontinuity to estimate the effect of social distancing. But they have terrible models. As I am from Canada, I had particular interest in the model for Canada, which is on their supplemental material, page 84 [reproduced above]. I could not believe this was published. […]

Association Between Universal Curve Fitting in a Health Care Journal and Journal Acceptance Among Health Care Researchers

Matt Folz points us to this recent JAMA article that features this amazing graph: Beautiful. Just beautiful. I say this ironically.

Coronavirus jailbreak

Emma Pierson writes: My two sisters and I, with my friend Jacob Steinhardt, spent the last several days looking at the statistical methodology in a paper which has achieved a lot of press – Incarceration and Its Disseminations: COVID-19 Pandemic Lessons From Chicago’s Cook County Jail (results in supplement), published in Health Affairs. (Here’s the […]

New England Journal of Medicine engages in typical academic corporate ass-covering behavior

James Watson (not the racist dude who, in 1998, said that a cancer cure was coming in 2 years) writes: About a month ago, when the infamous Lancet hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine paper was still “real science” (i.e. in the official scientific record), we decided to put extra pressure on the authors by writing an open letter to […]

Inference for coronavirus prevalence by inverting hypothesis tests

Panos Toulis writes: The debate on the Santa Clara study actually me to think about the problem from a finite sample inference perspective. In this case, we can fully write down the density f(S | θ) in known analytic form, where S = (vector of) test positives, θ = parameters (i.e., sensitivity, specificity and prevalence). […]

No, I don’t believe that claim based on regression discontinuity analysis that . . .

tl;dr. See point 4 below. Despite the p-less-than-0.05 statistical significance of the discontinuity in the above graph, no, I do not believe that losing a close election causes U.S. governors to die 5-10 years longer, as was claimed in this recently published article. Or, to put it another way: Despite the p-less-than-0.05 statistical significance of […]

The value of thinking about varying treatment effects: coronavirus example

Yesterday we discussed difficulties with the concept of average treatment effect. Part of designing a study is accounting for uncertainty in effect sizes. Unfortunately there is a tradition in clinical trials of making optimistic assumptions in order to claim high power. Here is an example that came up in March, 2020. A doctor was designing […]

No, there is no “tension between getting it fast and getting it right”

When reading Retraction Watch, I came across this quote: “There is always a tension between getting it fast and getting it right,” said Dr. Marcia Angell, another former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. “I always favored getting it right. But in the current pandemic, that balance may have shifted too […]

“The Intellectuals and the Masses”

I just read “The Intellectuals and the Masses,” a book from 1992 by the literary critic and English professor John Carey. I really liked the book, and after finishing it I decided to get some further perspective by reading some reviews. I found two excellent reviews online, a negative review in the London Independent by […]

“Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe”

Seth Flaxman writes: Our work on non-pharmaceutical interventions in 11 European countries (originally Imperial report 13) is now published in Nature, Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe. Of note for your readers: 1) Nature has an open peer review process, so you can see the (pre-publication) peer review here. 2) Between […]