Stat of the Week Competition Discussion: June 10 – 16 2017
If you’d like to comment on or debate any of this week’s Stat of the Week nominations, please do so below!
If you’d like to comment on or debate any of this week’s Stat of the Week nominations, please do so below!
The Guardian says “Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data, claims study”
A UK anaesthetist, John Carlise, has scraped 5000 clinical-trial publications, where patients are divided randomly into two groups before treatment is assigned, and looked at whether the two groups are more similar or more different than you’d expect by chance. His motivation appears to be that having groups which are too similar can be a sign of incompetent fraud by someone who doesn’t understand basic statistics. However, the statistical hypothesis he’s testing isn’t actually about fraud, or even about incompetent fraud.
As the research paper notes, some of the anomalous results can be explained by simple writing errors: saying “standard deviation” when you mean “standard error” — and this would, if anything, be evidence against fraud. Even in the cases where that specific writing error isn’t plausible, looking at the paper can show data fabrication to be an unlikely explanation. For example, in one of the papers singled out as having a big difference not explainable by the standard deviation/standard error confusion, the difference is in one blood chemistry measurement (tPA) that doesn’t play any real role in the conclusions. The data are not consistent with random error, but they also aren’t consistent with deliberate fraud. They are more consistent with someone typing 3.2 when they meant 4.2. This would still be a problem with the paper, both because some relatively unimportant data are wrong and because it says bad things about your workflow if you are still typing Table 1 by hand in the 21st century, but it’s not of the same scale as data fabrication.
You’d think the Guardian might be more sympathetic to typos as an explanation of error.
The basic method is described on my Department home page.
This week is pretty crazy, just one game from round 16 when round 15 has not been completed and won’t be for a month.
Here are the team ratings prior to this week’s games, along with the ratings at the start of the season.
Current Rating | Rating at Season Start | Difference | |
---|---|---|---|
Hurricanes | 17.92 | 13.22 | 4.70 |
Crusaders | 13.98 | 8.75 | 5.20 |
Highlanders | 11.43 | 9.17 | 2.30 |
Lions | 10.96 | 7.64 | 3.30 |
Chiefs | 8.49 | 9.75 | -1.30 |
Brumbies | 3.44 | 3.83 | -0.40 |
Blues | 2.65 | -1.07 | 3.70 |
Sharks | 1.52 | 0.42 | 1.10 |
Stormers | 0.53 | 1.51 | -1.00 |
Waratahs | -0.50 | 5.81 | -6.30 |
Bulls | -5.20 | 0.29 | -5.50 |
Jaguares | -5.38 | -4.36 | -1.00 |
Force | -8.85 | -9.45 | 0.60 |
Cheetahs | -9.83 | -7.36 | -2.50 |
Reds | -10.78 | -10.28 | -0.50 |
Kings | -13.53 | -19.02 | 5.50 |
Rebels | -15.58 | -8.17 | -7.40 |
Sunwolves | -18.38 | -17.76 | -0.60 |
So far there have been 120 matches played, 91 of which were correctly predicted, a success rate of 75.8%.
Here are the predictions for last week’s games.
Game | Date | Score | Prediction | Correct | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Blues vs. Reds | Jun 02 | 34 – 29 | 14.60 | TRUE |
2 | Crusaders vs. Highlanders | Jun 03 | 25 – 22 | 6.50 | TRUE |
3 | Chiefs vs. Waratahs | Jun 03 | 46 – 31 | 12.70 | TRUE |
4 | Brumbies vs. Rebels | Jun 03 | 32 – 3 | 21.60 | TRUE |
5 | Force vs. Hurricanes | Jun 03 | 12 – 34 | -22.90 | TRUE |
Here are the predictions for the Round 16 game this week. The prediction is my estimated expected points difference with a positive margin being a win to the home team, and a negative margin a win to the away team.
Game | Date | Winner | Prediction | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Hurricanes vs. Chiefs | Jun 09 | Hurricanes | 12.90 |
The basic method is described on my Department home page.
Here are the team ratings prior to this week’s games, along with the ratings at the start of the season.
Current Rating | Rating at Season Start | Difference | |
---|---|---|---|
Storm | 7.50 | 8.49 | -1.00 |
Broncos | 5.57 | 4.36 | 1.20 |
Sharks | 5.18 | 5.84 | -0.70 |
Raiders | 5.17 | 9.94 | -4.80 |
Panthers | 3.37 | 6.08 | -2.70 |
Sea Eagles | 3.19 | -2.98 | 6.20 |
Roosters | 3.00 | -1.17 | 4.20 |
Cowboys | 2.07 | 6.90 | -4.80 |
Dragons | 0.73 | -7.74 | 8.50 |
Eels | -1.60 | -0.81 | -0.80 |
Titans | -2.11 | -0.98 | -1.10 |
Warriors | -3.71 | -6.02 | 2.30 |
Rabbitohs | -4.69 | -1.82 | -2.90 |
Bulldogs | -5.04 | -1.34 | -3.70 |
Wests Tigers | -7.57 | -3.89 | -3.70 |
Knights | -13.12 | -16.94 | 3.80 |
So far there have been 99 matches played, 58 of which were correctly predicted, a success rate of 58.6%.
Here are the predictions for last week’s games.
Game | Date | Score | Prediction | Correct | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Storm vs. Knights | Jun 02 | 40 – 12 | 23.30 | TRUE |
2 | Eels vs. Warriors | Jun 02 | 32 – 24 | 5.70 | TRUE |
3 | Dragons vs. Wests Tigers | Jun 03 | 16 – 12 | 13.30 | TRUE |
4 | Roosters vs. Broncos | Jun 03 | 18 – 16 | 0.70 | TRUE |
5 | Cowboys vs. Titans | Jun 03 | 20 – 8 | 6.80 | TRUE |
6 | Sea Eagles vs. Raiders | Jun 04 | 21 – 20 | 1.60 | TRUE |
7 | Bulldogs vs. Panthers | Jun 04 | 0 – 38 | 0.90 | FALSE |
Here are the predictions for Round 14. The prediction is my estimated expected points difference with a positive margin being a win to the home team, and a negative margin a win to the away team.
Game | Date | Winner | Prediction | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Sharks vs. Storm | Jun 08 | Sharks | 1.20 |
2 | Sea Eagles vs. Knights | Jun 09 | Sea Eagles | 19.80 |
3 | Broncos vs. Rabbitohs | Jun 09 | Broncos | 13.80 |
4 | Titans vs. Warriors | Jun 10 | Titans | 5.60 |
5 | Panthers vs. Raiders | Jun 10 | Panthers | 1.70 |
6 | Eels vs. Cowboys | Jun 10 | Cowboys | -0.20 |
7 | Wests Tigers vs. Roosters | Jun 11 | Roosters | -7.10 |
8 | Bulldogs vs. Dragons | Jun 12 | Dragons | -2.30 |
Each week, we would like to invite readers of Stats Chat to submit nominations for our Stat of the Week competition and be in with the chance to win an iTunes voucher.
Here’s how it works:
Next Monday at midday we’ll announce the winner of this week’s Stat of the Week competition, and start a new one.
If you’d like to comment on or debate any of this week’s Stat of the Week nominations, please do so below!
Q: Did you see `young blood’ cuts cancer and Alzheimer’s risk?
A: That’s the headline, yes.
Q: This is the Silicon Valley startup that’s transfusing young people’s blood into older people?
A: Well, Monterey rather than Silicon Valley, but yes.
Q: Isn’t it a pity we used up all the vampire jokes on Theranos?
A: I’m sure they aren’t really dead, just sleeping. (more…)