The Ioannidis Affair: A Tale of Major Scientific Overreaction https://bit.ly/3moBjMN Scientific American by @JeanneLenzer1 and @ShannonBrownlee @sdbaral @BMJ_EBM
-
-
Replying to @JeanneLenzer1 @ShannonBrownlee and
This piece is inaccurate and should be corrected. This passage is wrong: the problems with the SC study were to do with uncertainty around test performance, and had very little to do with false negatives. This is not "absurdity" it is factpic.twitter.com/zadXM8cZKL
3 replies 5 retweets 59 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ShannonBrownlee and
thank you - yes, clearly meant false positives as was argued by critics and I've sent in a correction.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Changing the word to "positives" leaves the piece incorrect. The issue was with test characteristics - both sensitivity and specificity - and how this impacted the uncertainty of the estimate, not that critics were saying that all tests were definitely false positives
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.