You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Good lord, what a happy day! My cup o'erfloweth! 1. Valentina and Eike's updated paper has arrived on the journal website. 2. As I show below, the Big 10 (who I am guessing from twitter comments are some sort of sports governing body) should now be reopening their sport.
As you recall, the reason for my original mischievous tweet all those weeks ago, was to make fun of my friends for a cockup in their abstract. The main statistic in the abstract was of course impossible. OLD VERSION:pic.twitter.com/UTwR3ooOZJ
I normally deal with ORBITA-HQ'ers so I was expecting everyone to join in the laughter when I tweeted it (without the highlighting) because the local crowd here would instantly recognise that those IQRs could not possibly give a P value of 0.02 Have a look at the revised versionpic.twitter.com/IgHPGO7sWd
It is obvious that the original numbers did not match (for reasons I previously explained), and AT LEAST ONE of the seven numbers was wrong and would have to change. How many, in fact, turned out to be wrong and had to be changed?
The ONLY point I was trying to make with my original tweet was that any Cardiology Fellows should be able to spot that "these 7 numbers can't all be right together". I was disappointed that the first half a million downloaders didn't notice it.
I didn't know that all 7 numbers were mistakes. My principle is as follows:
"When one thing is obviously incorrect, Don't assume that the others are OK." Peter Falk Archives Columbo, 1975
And to the people who mocked me saying "How do you know this was not true" regarding the age stuff:pic.twitter.com/RL77iroksz
To them I say this. The interquartile range of age in that old version above was
That is obviously too narrow, for a group of people not selected specifically for age. In the updated version, here is the age distribution.pic.twitter.com/nVHXhu8jHm
In a Normal distribution which, roughly speaking, the age follows, the IQR is about 4/3 of the SD. So *now* what is the IQR of age?
So to the people who said words to the effect that "I have no idea about the stats but I am somehow confident to say they are very impressive", I suggest they revise their approach to drawing conclusions.
Cardiology fellows need these skills (in my dept) because I give them a remorseless mocking if they come into my office with mistakes like that. And of course they mock me, when I make such mistakes, which I do frequently.
(But only while I am laughing with them, obviously. Once I stop laughing, it's all over, they have to keep a straight face and pretend nothing ever happened.)
Now let's have a look at Table 1 which was the next thing that caught my eye, when the Twitterverse disappointed me by not noticing anything for 12 hours in the abstract (or rather, talking about lots of more subtle and erudite matters of MRI which I could not understand). OLD:pic.twitter.com/AKVZvbNm5p
What proportion of the P values changed?
Remember I highlighted the IQRs of age, systolic, diastolic and heart rate? And said those could not possibly be IQRs? They weren't. What were they?
Incidentally this is how the paper got published the first time. Most people are very unobservant.pic.twitter.com/OXYLXN7qpX
First person wrong on "what was this". OBVIOUSLY it wasn't mean +/- SD! Think about it, people!!! NEW:pic.twitter.com/JyLEMY0MRV
SD is what? Hint. It is highlighted in yellow. (Doh)
So +/- SD would be how wide?
Nor can it be +/- 2 SD, as that would be 64 (mmHg) wide. How wide was the originally quoted range?pic.twitter.com/OHuCQF8pCz
How wide was the gap between those highlighted numbers?
So we can immediately discount +/-SD (which would give a gap of 32) and +/- 1.96SD (which would give a gap of 64) Yes? The option I provided was completely laughable - it *cannot* be +/- anything to do with SDs.
So it must be something to do with SE's. If the SD in a sample of 100 patients is 16, roughly what is the SE?
No you don't need a calculator! The SE (which is a measure of how much the sample mean wiggles around when you have lots of patients rather than just one) ... declines in proportion to square root of N.
Valentina and Eike have gone to considerable effort to recruit a number of people that is a SQUARE of a ROUND number. Don't disrespect that. N = 100. SQRT(N) = 10 Therefore since the SD is 16, the SE must be 1.6.
Plus minus 1 SE would be how wide?
Yup. Too narrow. So, by exclusion, it must have been +/- 1.96 SEs, i.e. the confidence interval of the mean. How wide would that be? Hint: twice as much as the answer above.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
