cigs & figs

On Slate, there is quite a good discussion of the meaning and probabilistic basis of the statement that 1 in 3 teen smokers will die of cancer. It is written by a math prof and it is one of the most effective lay discussions I've seen of the use of probabilities in describing health risks. http:

Re: About kendall

>Subject: Re: About kendall >From: Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Your program that does the Kendall tau must do some >ranking, as part of the algorithm. Why do you think you >might have to calculate ranks? >Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Actually, algorithms for calculating Kendall's tau don't

Re: The False Placebo Effect

Rich Ulrich wrote: > - explanation: whole experiment is conducted on patients >who are at their *worst* because the flare-up is what sent >them to a doctor. Gina Kolata mentions regression to the mean in her NYTimes Week in Review article on the placebo effect today: http://www.nytimes.com/2

Re: (none)

>Subject: Re: (none) >From: Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: 5/10/2001 5:15 PM Eastern CH: " Why do articles appear in print when study methods, analyses, >results, and conclusions are somewhat faulty?" > > - I suspect it might be a consequence of "Sturgeon's Law," >named after the science

Re: Inference by Bootstrapping

>He also says "... we have to ensure that the residual errors are not >correlated. >If the errors exhibit some correlation, then a transformation of the >residuals >is in order." > This seems to be wrong. Usually you analyze the residuals and if there is serial correlation, consider alternate mo

RE: Help on treating non-detects

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon, Steve, PhD) >For a lognormal distribution, the left tail can often be approximated by a >triangular distribution. The median of a triangular distribution is the >upper limit divided by the square root of 2. > >There are more sophisticated approaches, of course, to

Help on treating non-detects

This may be a simple question on how to handle non-detects in analysis: The CDC just released an important survey of chemicals in humans: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/report/default.htm One part of the data analysis piqued my interest, how non-detects were handled: On the following page: http://ww

RE: On inappropriate hypothesis testing. Was: MIT Sexism & sta

>Subject: RE: On inappropriate hypothesis testing. Was: MIT Sexism & sta >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon, Steve, PhD) >Date: 3/16/2001 7:23 PM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: > >Also, has anyone looked at a log transformation of the data?

edstat-l@jse.stat.ncsu.edu

> >Irving Scheffe wrote: > >> Original MIT Report on the Status of Women Faculty: >> http://mindit.netmind.com/proxy/http://web.mit.edu/fnl/ > > >It is frustrating to keep getting errors when I try to access a >printable version of the report, whether by using IE or Netscape. Is >there a known wo