Now, you'll note that this doesn't really match the headline. That's because the headline combined the *unadjusted* results with the *adjusted* results That's problematic!
-
Show this thread
-
It also reports only relative risk differences, but here I think the absolute risk difference is really informative! The rate is going from 0.3% up to 0.6%, which is a bit less terrifying in context
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Delving deeper into the paper tho, there are more caveats Firstly, physician race. The dataset didn't contain this information...so how did the researchers get it?pic.twitter.com/qiQc8ATxvV
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
Well, it turns out they used a lengthy but still not ideal process that can be summed up simply: they Googled the physician names and looked at their photos to define race Even with the controls described here, that has issuespic.twitter.com/a57b1RC1fb
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
Moving on, there are other worrying limitations here. The dataset contained 4.5 million births, but the primary analysis only uses 1.8 million What's happening here?
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Well, turns out they had ANOTHER primary analysis - Latino babies treated by Latino physicians The results might be a bit of a surprise!pic.twitter.com/IuNHagmqfe
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
If you read those regression results, compared to the 0.3% death rate of white babies, Latino babies have a death rate of 0.35% But this INCREASES to 0.4% when the physician is Latino!
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
Now, the statistical significance disappears in one of the models there, and I'm not saying that it's likely that Latino physicians are killing babies, but it underscores the difficulty of these analyses Causal attribution is NOT EASY
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
For one thing, the analysis didn't adjust for a few confounders that could be important: - maternal age - paternal factors - BMI/blood sugar/blood pressure (they did adjust for ICD-10 codes but these are pretty blunt)
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Now all of this is not to say that this study isn't worthwhile, important, and should prompt further research But I think it's worth noting that the CNN headline at the start of this thread that went mega-viral is misleading at best
1 reply 1 retweet 18 likesShow this thread
If NOTHING ELSE, this could read "0.3% more likely to die"pic.twitter.com/s8VnrO4Ipq
-
-
Anyway, the point here is not to bash the study, but to point out that you should be skeptical of everything ESPECIALLY if it agrees with you because that's where you're most blind
0 replies 7 retweets 50 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.