This is my brother's take on peer review. I have talked to scientists who have appreciated some of their peer reviews, and say they improved the paper, but I strongly suspect that, in the main, Aaron is correct.https://twitter.com/ahaspel/status/1404850613574328325 …
The datasets I work with are only deidentifiable to a point. You can often reidentify people with a reasonable degree of accuracy once you've got 200+ fields of information on them
-
-
Fair point. Are there studies that use 200+ fields? FFQ data, maybe?
-
Pretty much any large public health database will have that information, whether or not every field is used in the study
- 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.