Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From ChanceWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Of Mice and Males==




Authors are not responsible for what journalists write about a research article.  Lacking knowledge of statistics, reporters tend to act like stenographers when they aren't extrapolating far beyond the limits of the research.  Take a look at what the lay press had to say about [http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/j151602t103q3h76/?p=8b1ffc09760a4f009a01e070823d6d3e&pi=0 "Experimental alteration of litter sex ratios in a mammal"] which appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society (B).
==Forsooth==


The Daily Mail:
==Quotations==
“We know that people tend to overestimate the frequency of well-publicized, spectacular
events compared with more commonplace ones; this is a well-understood phenomenon in
the literature of risk assessment and leads to the truism that when statistics plays folklore,
folklore always wins in a rout.”
<div align=right>-- Donald Kennedy (former president of Stanford University), ''Academic Duty'', Harvard University Press, 1997, p.17</div>


<blockquote>Red meat and salty snacks are said to lead to boys while chocolate is thought to help to produce girls.  Now science suggests the stories may be true: mice with low blood-sugar levels - a good indicator of a sugar-rich diet - produce more female than male offspring. </blockquote>
----


The Independent:
"Using scientific language and measurement doesn’t prevent a researcher from conducting flawed experiments and drawing wrong conclusions — especially when they confirm preconceptions."


<blockquote>Boy or girl? Battle of the sexes Are you desperate for a daughter or dying for a son? The solution could lie in a mother's diet - before she even conceives.</blockquote>
<div align=right>-- Blaise Agüera y Arcas, Margaret Mitchell and Alexander Todoorov, quoted in: The racist history behind facial recognition, ''New York Times'', 10 July 2019</div>


New Scientist:
==In progress==
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/magazine/placebo-effect-medicine.html What if the Placebo Effect Isn’t a Trick?]<br>
by Gary Greenberg, ''New York Times Magazine'', 7 November 2018


<blockquote>Findings lend credence to traditional beliefs that eating certain foods can influence the sex of offspring.</blockquote>
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/opinion/pretrial-ai.html The Problems With Risk Assessment Tools]<br>
by Chelsea Barabas, Karthik Dinakar and Colin Doyle, ''New York Times'', 17 July 2019


Discover:  
==Hurricane Maria deaths==
Laura Kapitula sent the following to the Isolated Statisticians e-mail list:


<blockquote>The Biology of . . . Sex Ratios.  Want a boy at all costs? The secret may lie in your glucose levels.</blockquote>
:[Why counting casualties after a hurricane is so hard]<br>
:by Jo Craven McGinty, Wall Street Journal, 7 September 2018


FoxNews.com:  
The article is subtitled: Indirect deaths—such as those caused by gaps in medication—can occur months after a storm, complicating tallies
Laura noted that
:[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/02/did-4645-people-die-in-hurricane-maria-nope/?utm_term=.0a5e6e48bf11 Did 4,645 people die in Hurricane Maria? Nope.]<br>
:by Glenn Kessler, ''Washington Post'', 1 June 2018


<blockquote>Can what a mother-to-be eats influence the sex of her unborn baby? Maybe, says new research.</blockquote>
The source of the 4645 figure is a [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1803972 NEJM article].  Point estimate, the 95% confidence interval ran from 793 to 8498.


The research itself looks at a very important issue in biology: the influence of nutrition on reproductive strategy and the ensuing evolutionary advantage. To carry out their research, they had 20 female mice in a control group and 20 female mice in the treatment group which was given "a steroid [DEX] that inhibits glucose transport and reduces plasma glucose concentrations.The original paper does not give a table whereby for each of the 40 mice is recorded the number in the litter, number of males and which arm of the study it was inInstead, we have to relay on the given summary data: average litter size for control is 10.45 with a standard error of .60, and the average litter size for the treatment is 9.17 with a standard error of .62.
President Trump has asserted that the actual number is
[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1040217897703026689 6 to 18].
The ''Post'' article notes that Puerto Rican official had asked researchers at George Washington University to do an estimate of the death tollThat work is not complete.
[https://prstudy.publichealth.gwu.edu/ George Washington University study]


According to the article, "The sex ratio differed significantly between the treatment and control groups (rank-sum test: Z= -2.18, p=0.03), with DEX females giving birth to fewer sons (41.9%) than control females (53.5%)."  With this information, it would appear that the control group produced a total of 10.45 * 20 = 209 mice resulting in 209*.535 = 112 males.  The treatment group is more difficult to determine because two of the 18 "failed to conceive;" thus, if only 18 are relevant, then the treatment group has 9.17 * 18 = 165 mice and 165 * .419 = 69 males.  Using these numbers, a Minitab printout yields a (Fisher exact because of the relatively small samples) p-value of .029 which is close to the "p=.03" mentioned in the article.
:[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-still-dont-know-how-many-people-died-because-of-katrina/?ex_cid=538twitter We sttill don’t know how many people died because of Katrina]<br>
:by Carl Bialik, FiveThirtyEight, 26 August 2015


Test and CI for Two Proportions
----
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/climate/hurricane-evacuation-path-forecasts.html These 3 Hurricane Misconceptions Can Be Dangerous. Scientists Want to Clear Them Up.]<br>
[https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-88-5-651 Misinterpretations of the “Cone of Uncertainty” in Florida during the 2004 Hurricane Season]<br>
[https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutcone.shtml Definition of the NHC Track Forecast Cone]
----
[https://www.popsci.com/moderate-drinking-benefits-risks Remember when a glass of wine a day was good for you? Here's why that changed.]
''Popular Science'', 10 September 2018
----
[https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/08/30/googling-the-news Googling the news]<br>
''Economist'', 1 September 2018


<center><table width="41%" height="77" border="1">
[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/google-tests-changes-to-its-search-algorithm-how-search-works.html We sat in on an internal Google meeting where they talked about changing the search algorithm — here's what we learned]
  <tr>
----
    <td width="20%"><div align="center">Sample</div></td>
[http://www.wyso.org/post/stats-stories-reading-writing-and-risk-literacy Reading , Writing and Risk Literacy]
    <td width="19%"><div align="center">X</div></td>
    <td width="16%"><div align="center">N</div></td>
    <td width="45%"><div align="center">Sample p</div></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><div align="center">1</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">112</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">209</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">.0.535885</div></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><div align="center">2</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">69</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">165</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">0.418182</div></td>
  </tr>
</table>
</center>
 
Difference = p (1) - p (2)
 
Estimate for difference:  0.117703


95% CI for difference:  (0.0165306, 0.218876)
[http://www.riskliteracy.org/]
-----
[https://twitter.com/i/moments/1025000711539572737?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&refsrc=email Today is the deadliest day of the year for car wrecks in the U.S.]


Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0):  Z = 2.28  P-Value = 0.023
==Some math doodles==
<math>P \left({A_1 \cup A_2}\right) = P\left({A_1}\right) + P\left({A_2}\right) -P \left({A_1 \cap A_2}\right)</math>


Fisher's exact test: P-Value = 0.029
<math>P(E)  = {n \choose k} p^k (1-p)^{ n-k}</math>


Discussion
<math>\hat{p}(H|H)</math>


1. No confidence interval for the difference in proportion of males is given in the article itself.  Does the 95% CI suggest any guarantee for reduction in male mice?  Male humans?
<math>\hat{p}(H|HH)</math>


2. Regarding the treatment arm, the article states : "42%, two-tailed binomial test, p=.04."  Using the summary data, Minitab reports
==Accidental insights==


Test and CI for One Proportion
My collective understanding of Power Laws would fit beneath the shallow end of the long tail. Curiosity, however, easily fills the fat end.  I long have been intrigued by the concept and the surprisingly common appearance of power laws in varied natural, social and organizational dynamics.  But, am I just seeing a statistical novelty or is there meaning and utility in Power Law relationships? Here’s a case in point.


Test of p = 0.5 vs p not = 0.5
While carrying a pair of 10 lb. hand weights one, by chance, slipped from my grasp and fell onto a piece of ceramic tile I had left on the carpeted floor. The fractured tile was inconsequential, meant for the trash.
<center>[[File:BrokenTile.jpg | 400px]]</center>
As I stared, slightly annoyed, at the mess, a favorite maxim of the Greek philosopher, Epictetus, came to mind: “On the occasion of every accident that befalls you, turn to yourself and ask what power you have to put it to use.”  Could this array of large and small polygons form a Power Law? With curiosity piqued, I collected all the fragments and measured the area of each piece.


<center><table width="44%" border="1">
<center>
  <tr>
{| class="wikitable"
    <td width="15%"><div align="center">Sample</div></td>
|-
    <td width="6%"><div align="center">X</div></td>
! Piece !! Sq. Inches !! % of Total
    <td width="9%"><div align="center">N</div></td>
|-
    <td width="19%"><div align="center">Sample p</div></td>
| 1 || 43.25 || 31.9%
    <td width="25%"><div align="center">95% CI</div></td>
|-
    <td width="26%"><div align="center">p-Value</div></td>
| 2 || 35.25 ||26.0%
  </tr>
|-
  <tr>
|  3 || 23.25 || 17.2%
    <td><div align="center">1</div></td>
|-
    <td><div align="center">69</div></td>
| 4 || 14.10 || 10.4%
    <td><div align="center">165</div></td>
|-
    <td><div align="center">0.418182</div></td>
| 5 || 7.10 || 5.2%
    <td><div align="center">0.341979</div></td>
|-
    <td><div align="center">0.497378</div></td>
| 6 || 4.70 || 3.5%
  </tr>
|-
</table>
| 7 || 3.60 || 2.7%
|-
| 8 || 3.03 || 2.2%
|-
| 9 || 0.66 || 0.5%
|-
| 10 || 0.61 || 0.5%
|}
</center>
</center>
<center>[[File:Montante_plot1.png | 500px]]</center>
The data and plot look like a Power Law distribution. The first plot is an exponential fit of percent total area. The second plot is same data on a log normal format. Clue: Ok, data fits a straight line.  I found myself again in the shallow end of the knowledge curve. Does the data reflect a Power Law or something else, and if it does what does it reflect?  What insights can I gain from this accident? Favorite maxims of Epictetus and Pasteur echoed in my head:
“On the occasion of every accident that befalls you, remember to turn to yourself and inquire what power you have to turn it to use” and “Chance favors only the prepared mind.”


Does this 95% CI suggest any guarantee for reduction in the number of male mice?  Male humans?
<center>[[File:Montante_plot2.png | 500px]]</center>
 
3.  Thus far, offspring production has been treated as a Bernoulli process.  That is, each offspring is considered to be independent.  In other words, no use has been made of the number of female parents (20 in the control and 18 in the treatment arm).  Using the summary data given in the article, Minitab obtains for the difference in means of males a somewhat different p-value, .05 rather than the .03 mentioned in the article and thus a wider interval.
My “prepared” mind searched for answers, leading me down varied learning paths. Tapping the power of networks, I dropped a note to Chance News editor Bill Peterson. His quick web search surfaced a story from ''Nature News'' on research by Hans Herrmann, et. al. [http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040227/full/news040223-11.html Shattered eggs reveal secrets of explosions]As described there, researchers have found power-law relationships for the fragments produced by shattering a pane of glass or breaking a solid object, such as a stone. Seems there is a science underpinning how things break and explode; potentially useful in Forensic reconstructions.
 
Bill also provided a link to [http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/poweRlaw/vignettes/poweRlaw.pdf a vignette from CRAN] describing a maximum likelihood procedure for fitting a Power Law relationship. I am now learning my way through that.
Two-Sample T-Test and CI
 
<center><table width="43%" border="1">
  <tr>
    <td width="17%"><div align="center">Sample</div></td>
    <td width="14%"><div align="center">N</div></td>
    <td width="21%"><div align="center">Mean</div></td>
    <td width="23%"><div align="center">StDev</div></td>
    <td width="25%"><div align="center">SE Mean</div></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><div align="center">1</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">20</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">5.59</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">2.68</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">0.60</div></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><div align="center">2</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">18</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">3.84</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">2.63</div></td>
    <td><div align="center">0.62</div></td>
  </tr>
</table>
</center>
 
Difference = mu (1) - mu (2)
 
Estimate for difference:  1.750
 
95% CI for difference: (-0.000, 3.500)
 
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 2.03  P-Value = 0.050  DF = 35
 
Ask a biologist whether or not the Bernoulli assumption is valid.
 
4.  All of the above is from a frequentist point of view. What would Baysians add to the discussion and why?


5. As noted, two of the 18 in the treatment arm failed to conceive while all 20 in the control arm did conceive.  How does this affect your view of the results?
Submitted by William Montante


Submitted by Paul Alper
----

Latest revision as of 20:58, 17 July 2019


Forsooth

Quotations

“We know that people tend to overestimate the frequency of well-publicized, spectacular events compared with more commonplace ones; this is a well-understood phenomenon in the literature of risk assessment and leads to the truism that when statistics plays folklore, folklore always wins in a rout.”

-- Donald Kennedy (former president of Stanford University), Academic Duty, Harvard University Press, 1997, p.17

"Using scientific language and measurement doesn’t prevent a researcher from conducting flawed experiments and drawing wrong conclusions — especially when they confirm preconceptions."

-- Blaise Agüera y Arcas, Margaret Mitchell and Alexander Todoorov, quoted in: The racist history behind facial recognition, New York Times, 10 July 2019

In progress

What if the Placebo Effect Isn’t a Trick?
by Gary Greenberg, New York Times Magazine, 7 November 2018

The Problems With Risk Assessment Tools
by Chelsea Barabas, Karthik Dinakar and Colin Doyle, New York Times, 17 July 2019

Hurricane Maria deaths

Laura Kapitula sent the following to the Isolated Statisticians e-mail list:

[Why counting casualties after a hurricane is so hard]
by Jo Craven McGinty, Wall Street Journal, 7 September 2018

The article is subtitled: Indirect deaths—such as those caused by gaps in medication—can occur months after a storm, complicating tallies

Laura noted that

Did 4,645 people die in Hurricane Maria? Nope.
by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 1 June 2018

The source of the 4645 figure is a NEJM article. Point estimate, the 95% confidence interval ran from 793 to 8498.

President Trump has asserted that the actual number is 6 to 18. The Post article notes that Puerto Rican official had asked researchers at George Washington University to do an estimate of the death toll. That work is not complete. George Washington University study

We sttill don’t know how many people died because of Katrina
by Carl Bialik, FiveThirtyEight, 26 August 2015

These 3 Hurricane Misconceptions Can Be Dangerous. Scientists Want to Clear Them Up.
Misinterpretations of the “Cone of Uncertainty” in Florida during the 2004 Hurricane Season
Definition of the NHC Track Forecast Cone


Remember when a glass of wine a day was good for you? Here's why that changed. Popular Science, 10 September 2018


Googling the news
Economist, 1 September 2018

We sat in on an internal Google meeting where they talked about changing the search algorithm — here's what we learned


Reading , Writing and Risk Literacy

[1]


Today is the deadliest day of the year for car wrecks in the U.S.

Some math doodles

<math>P \left({A_1 \cup A_2}\right) = P\left({A_1}\right) + P\left({A_2}\right) -P \left({A_1 \cap A_2}\right)</math>

<math>P(E) = {n \choose k} p^k (1-p)^{ n-k}</math>

<math>\hat{p}(H|H)</math>

<math>\hat{p}(H|HH)</math>

Accidental insights

My collective understanding of Power Laws would fit beneath the shallow end of the long tail. Curiosity, however, easily fills the fat end. I long have been intrigued by the concept and the surprisingly common appearance of power laws in varied natural, social and organizational dynamics. But, am I just seeing a statistical novelty or is there meaning and utility in Power Law relationships? Here’s a case in point.

While carrying a pair of 10 lb. hand weights one, by chance, slipped from my grasp and fell onto a piece of ceramic tile I had left on the carpeted floor. The fractured tile was inconsequential, meant for the trash.

BrokenTile.jpg

As I stared, slightly annoyed, at the mess, a favorite maxim of the Greek philosopher, Epictetus, came to mind: “On the occasion of every accident that befalls you, turn to yourself and ask what power you have to put it to use.” Could this array of large and small polygons form a Power Law? With curiosity piqued, I collected all the fragments and measured the area of each piece.

Piece Sq. Inches % of Total
1 43.25 31.9%
2 35.25 26.0%
3 23.25 17.2%
4 14.10 10.4%
5 7.10 5.2%
6 4.70 3.5%
7 3.60 2.7%
8 3.03 2.2%
9 0.66 0.5%
10 0.61 0.5%
Montante plot1.png

The data and plot look like a Power Law distribution. The first plot is an exponential fit of percent total area. The second plot is same data on a log normal format. Clue: Ok, data fits a straight line. I found myself again in the shallow end of the knowledge curve. Does the data reflect a Power Law or something else, and if it does what does it reflect? What insights can I gain from this accident? Favorite maxims of Epictetus and Pasteur echoed in my head: “On the occasion of every accident that befalls you, remember to turn to yourself and inquire what power you have to turn it to use” and “Chance favors only the prepared mind.”

Montante plot2.png

My “prepared” mind searched for answers, leading me down varied learning paths. Tapping the power of networks, I dropped a note to Chance News editor Bill Peterson. His quick web search surfaced a story from Nature News on research by Hans Herrmann, et. al. Shattered eggs reveal secrets of explosions. As described there, researchers have found power-law relationships for the fragments produced by shattering a pane of glass or breaking a solid object, such as a stone. Seems there is a science underpinning how things break and explode; potentially useful in Forensic reconstructions. Bill also provided a link to a vignette from CRAN describing a maximum likelihood procedure for fitting a Power Law relationship. I am now learning my way through that.

Submitted by William Montante