Clarity comments on Why epidemiology will not correct itself - Less Wrong

38 Post author: gwern 11 August 2011 12:54AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (13)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Clarity 21 June 2015 04:18:52AM *  0 points [-]

Recently I attended a talk by some genetic epidemiology students who applied to bonferroni corrections just based on their supervisor's advice. The whole lot of them had done it, independently. It's a conservative method, and not always the best approach. I reckon some subfields of epidemiology are more liable to methodological failings than others.

Inquiries into the relation between any method as a method and the practice of that method are relatively uncommon. There are, however, a few recent examples in epidemiology. Very little mismatch was observed between the methodological accounts of case-control studies of cancer screening and their practice, perhaps because those who write the methods papers in this highly specialised area are also directly involved in designing investigations of screening programmes using the case-control approach.10 For other methods, the situation is not so neat. Considerable mismatch between methodological standards and actual practice was recently identified in clinical epidemiological studies of molecular and genetic factors

Comment author: gwern 21 June 2015 02:47:03PM 1 point [-]

I don't follow. You mean, why does reducing false positives increase false negatives? Because Bonferroni doesn't pull any new data from anywhere, it just shifts along a tradeoff.