23/n This number is the ENTIRE BASIS for the paper. If schooling reduces mortality by less than 25%, then the number of deaths caused by missed school days will drop as well And we have a problem, because this 25% figure is...wrong
-
Show this thread
-
24/n Firstly, we have these top 2 papers. Because they're from the US, they are more heavily weighted than the others (this is arbitrary, but whatever) Except the values for the second paper are flatly incorrectpic.twitter.com/VxC2Krkj3z
1 reply 4 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
25/n Mazumder (2008) did not find a relative risk of 0.65 (0-1.3), it found an RR of 0.89 (0.74-1.04) The paper is here. I've read it very carefully and this appears to be the main finding from the author https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/economic-perspectives/2008/2qtr2008-part1-mazumder …pic.twitter.com/1FY15LCXFe
1 reply 2 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
26/n So the number is wrong, but this brings us to another issue - the two papers at the top that were double-weighted...are ON THE SAME DATASET This is a massive issuepic.twitter.com/trCaHySTYE
2 replies 5 retweets 46 likesShow this thread -
27/n You see, Lleras-Muney compiled an estimate based on a number of factors on the reduction in risk from 1 year of extra schooling. Mazumder, three years later, took that same database and re-analyzed it considering additional factors, and estimated a lower reductionpic.twitter.com/2pWUNsP6Qb
1 reply 3 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
28/n However you slice it, it's inappropriate to just bung these two estimates together into a model and treat them as separate. I would argue that the Mazumder paper is probably a better estimate, but either way what they've done here is wrong
1 reply 2 retweets 37 likesShow this thread -
29/n If I re-run the meta-analysis they've purported to use with the correct numbers, we end up with this graph instead. A relative reduction in risk of death of 5% for every year of schooling This is A QUARTER of the estimate used in the studypic.twitter.com/xQk5F1tDzT
2 replies 5 retweets 44 likesShow this thread -
30/n So AT BEST assuming there are no other errors, the estimate of the years of life lost due to school closures should be divided by 5
12 replies 4 retweets 53 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
So do you write the journal when you make these threads? Still trying to navigate the role of post-pub-review by Twitter v journal correspondence. Seems like most successful corrections/retractions I’ve seen were due to media/social media rather than official correspondence.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SarahDRasmussen @GidMK
Sarah Rasmussen Retweeted Sarah Rasmussen
Misreporting data (.89 -> .65), duplicating data (US cases), & using diff methodology from stated (inverse-variance weighting) in a way that drastically impacts results... are big problems. But the Lancet C&AH editor didn’t care when reported all 3 such types of problems & more.https://twitter.com/SarahDRasmussen/status/1309437229622865920 …
Sarah Rasmussen added,
Sarah Rasmussen @SarahDRasmussenSchool closures + bad science (THREAD) Remember that 6 Apr Lancet C&AH systematic review on school closures--with that media-amplified "2-4%" statistic--by a UCL team led by RCPCH president + SAGE member Russell Viner? It has some serious problems. 1/ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30095-X/fulltext …Show this thread1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes
Thus far I've had mixed success with various options. The thing is, it is entirely up to the editors - some care about social media, some care about letters, a scant few care about PubPeer, many care about none of this
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @SarahDRasmussen
Give them all barrels at the same time... and then move on. A sequential approach is too slow and frustrating.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. 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.