2/n The article itself is here, and honestly it’s a bit of an odd piece. If I were to commission a review on the small number of SR/MAs on the COVID-19 IFR, I’d probably want it to be written by someone who hadn’t authored one of the 6https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554 …
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/n Moreover, I personally find the entire focus of the piece strange. I do not think it is reasonably possible to accurately estimate the GLOBAL IFR (infection fatality rate/ratio) of COVID-19
Show this thread -
4/n The problem with trying to work out a global IFR – i.e. the total number of people dead/infected for COVID-19 across the world – is that both the death AND infection data is scant in most places in the world
Show this thread -
5/n For example, this recent systematic review of seroprevalence studies found that even after including more than 400 pieces of research total there was insufficient evidence to infer a truly global estimatehttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00026-7/fulltext …
Show this thread -
6/n On the other side of the coin, there’s evidence that in some countries that the death figures from COVID-19 may underestimate the true toll by an order of magnitude (or more!) https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n334 …pic.twitter.com/RSZJXEiJCE
Show this thread -
7/n So I don't know if the primary purpose of this paper makes sense But what is it exactly? Well, it’s mostly a review of systematic reviewspic.twitter.com/sDUTgBUIMF
Show this thread -
8/n The author looks at each review and discusses his view on their limitations and successes, then concludes that the best estimate is his ownpic.twitter.com/FmYoX73sLx
Show this thread -
9/n He spends quite a bit of time on my and
@LeaMerone's paper, arguing that we “cherry-picked” evidence to suit our conclusions and that our analysis methods are “overtly implausible”pic.twitter.com/IYmo9fuxZl
Show this thread -
10/n Now, one thing to note is that these are judgement calls rather than actual scientific critiques. We laid out our methodology quite transparently – saying that this is “implausible” is an opinion, not a fact
Show this thread -
11/n That being said, I disagree with many of these statements. For example, this passage argues that we excluded studies in “overtly biased ways” with these three pieces of researchpic.twitter.com/owWid1tW7s
Show this thread -
12/n I’m not sure how it is possible to say that something is “overtly biased” when it is transparent and open, but nevertheless there are quite obvious explanations for all of these things (that we give in the paper)
Show this thread -
13/n For example, this tabulated estimate includes studies that we reference elsewhere in the review, with 5 of these estimates ~included in our meta-analysis~ It would actually be BAD scientific practice to include these figures twice!pic.twitter.com/INsey09yZo
Show this thread -
14/n The paper which he co-authored is, I suppose, a matter for discussion – perhaps
@LeaMerone and I were presumptuous in reading “selection bias is likely...” as an explicit warning against extrapolating to the entire population of LA CountyShow this thread -
15/n There are also parts of this paper that are bizarre. It is, for example, not a strength of meta-research to include MORE studies. Indeed, the phrase “garbage in garbage out” is commonly used to describe analyses that do not attempt to exclude poorly-done studiespic.twitter.com/fmkl2t8JbP
Show this thread -
16/n I would argue that one of the biggest STRENGTHS of our meta-analysis was the time we spent EXCLUDING biased research, because as has now become fairly obvious these studies often overestimate seroprevalence in a population
Show this thread -
17/n But overall, I think that Prof Ioannidis' review really shows the issues with having people who have staked their reputation on an issue author perspective pieces on the issue. We all tend to think that our own research is the best
Show this thread -
18/n Now, to the personal attacks I must admit, I was quite shocked to read this published in a scientific paper I’m not going to go over them, but please do have a read in the paper itself (appendix 1)
Show this thread -
19/n For my followers who don’t publish academic research, it’s worth noting that these attacks not only were written by the author, but approved by at least one editor and (usually) 2-3 peers as well
Show this thread -
20/n I make no secret of my junior status (it’s there in my twitter bio and every paper I publish), but to say that my research is flawed because of it is a remarkable piece of gatekeeping and I think really quite harmful
Show this thread -
21/n It is also worth noting that while I am still doing my PhD, I have been working in public health for more than half a decade, because often the more sought-after qualification is an MPH not PhD
Show this thread -
22/n I appreciate the many wonderful people who have come to my defense against these attacks, but in all honesty it’s not me that I’m worried about. For better or worse, I have a large platform, and I’m not in any huge danger from a professor being publicly mean to mepic.twitter.com/94u313SGFy
Show this thread -
23/n But imagine, for a second, that I had not been in the news a bit and grown a social media platform. Imagine I was one of 1,000s of faceless PhD students watching a tenured professor at Stanford publicly defame one of their comrades It’s quite chilling
Show this thread -
24/n I may have the wherewithal to defend myself, and I’ll be writing to the journal, but the implication that PhD students have no place in scientific discourse, that their papers are worthless scientifically will, I think, have far greater ramifications
Show this thread -
25/n Imagine reading this as a PhD student at Stanford. This is a senior faculty member telling these students that no matter what work they do, their opinions will always come second to professors Not what I would hope the scientific discourse to be
Show this thread -
26/n This issue is not a new one by a long shot.
@hertzpodcast covered the issues that PhD students face several times in great detail – I recommend you listenhttps://everythinghertz.com/96Show this thread -
27/n I could point out that our paper was reviewed by several very senior epis before we submitted it (including one of the most senior epis in Australia), but that they did not feel they contributed enough to add their names – perhaps this would’ve saved me a tongue-lashing
Show this thread -
28/n But the point is that we should not have to have Big Fancy Professors on our paper for it to be considered on its own merits. I’m sure we could have twisted our colleagues’ arms, but we did not think that a professor would stoop to our PhDs as a means of attack
Show this thread -
29/n I will be writing to the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. Given that the immediate past Editor In Chief was one professor John Ioannidis, I’m not sure it will do much good, but at least I will have my saypic.twitter.com/oJ6qTSvHoS
Show this thread -
30/n But for anyone reading this who is mentoring PhD students, particularly people at Stanford, I would suggest strongly that you check in and assure them that you do indeed find their opinions and perspectives useful
Show this thread -
31/n As to the paper itself? There are obviously more issues – covered here in depth by
@AtomsksSanakan – but oddly enough there are also places where Prof Ioannidis and I agree about our paperhttps://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1375935382139834373?s=20 …
Show this thread - Show replies
New conversation -
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.