Briefly

• From the journal BMJ “Data about the timing of when laboratory tests were ordered were more accurate than the test results in predicting survival in 118 of 174 tests (68%).” In particular, for one of the tests they looked at, having the blood test ordered at 5am (regardless of the result) was more of a bad sign than having it ordered at 5pm and giving an unfavourable result.  This isn’t all that surprising: if you get lab tests ordered at 5am there’s a problem, and a favourable result for the test just means the problem isn’t the one that the test was looking for. But it is potentially a problem for interpreting conclusions from large-scale data mining or, to be fair, from uninformed statistical analysis.
• NBC News in Chicago did a story on direct-to-consumer genetic testing. As several journalists have done, they sent a DNA sample to multiple testing companies and compared the results.  They also did the same thing with a sample from a Labrador.  Most of the companies said the dog’s DNA didn’t genotype successfully. Most, but not all.
• Tim Harford recommends books on understanding data-driven prediction algorithms
• A talk by Jonathan Korum of the New York Times on graphics for science stories
• From Karl Broman and Kara Woo: “Data Organization in Spreadsheets” If you, or someone you know, uses spreadsheets …
• How to display uncertainty in election predictions. From The Crosstab.
• Someone in the US was hit by lightning, bitten by a shark, bitten by a venomous snake, and attacked by a bear in one year. National Geographic says

Since each event is independent the odds of each are multiplied together, he said, making the odds of this happening 893.35 quadrillion to one.

         Of course, they really aren’t independent — and the next sentence pretty much points this out

McWilliams just chalks all this up to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He encourages everyone to experience the outdoors. “I still go hiking, I still catch rattlesnakes, and I will still swim in the ocean,